Talk:Federico Gatti/GA2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 19:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this one up.

Issues:

References required for honours section!
Heights should be in centimetres, not metres
Consider renaming the "2022–present" section per MOS:TOPRESENT

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
After a major effort by the GOCE, prose issues seem to be resolved.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
A couple of minor MOS issues (above), but falls within the limits of GA
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Honours section is not references - major issue for a WP:BLP

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Looks like work on the article finished over a week ago
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images are appropriately licensed and tagged for personality rights

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A workman-like Good Article. Will promote if the issues are resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Done
Same thing of Fabio Miretti
We, on WT:FOOTY, have decided not to use "present" (I don't remember when).

@Hawkeye7 Dr Salvus 20:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably a few months ago when there was a lot of discussion on the MOS talk page. The point is though that it is highly likely that articles will go for years without being updated by humans and what is meant by "present" will become a puzzle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 And so? What do I do? Dr Salvus 20:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the "-present". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 it's not used only in the infobox football biogrpahy template. The other one is fine. Dr Salvus 21:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATETOPRES: For ranges "to present", the current year (or, in cases where necessary, date) of "present" at the time of writing should be included. Thus 1982–present (as of YYYY) is preferable to just 1982–present, with YYYY being replaced with the year in which you are writing. If the "from" date has an internal space, a spaced en dash is used. Other constructions may be more appropriate in prose (see § Statements likely to become outdated). In tables and infoboxes where space is limited, pres. may be used (1982–pres.). Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982– and 1982–... But this falls outside the parts of the MOS that GAs must conform to. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 But it is not the law and we've decided not to use "-present" in the infobox. We have 3003030342030 GAs on footballers that don't have it. E.g. Trent Alexander Arnold, Hassan Maatouk, Paul Pogba, Gigi Buffon, Pep Guardiola (who's a coach) and Tammy Abraham. Dr Salvus 21:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Just remove it from the section heading. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7,

Done Dr Salvus 21:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.