Talk:Fenerbahçe S.K./GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 06:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to do this but I'm going to fail this article as I believe there are far too many issues to be reasonably fixed within a single GA review. I'll give a quick list of the major problems that need addressing:

The opening is huge. WP:LEAD states that the opening of the article should be a "concise overview of the article's topic" and is well over the recommended length advised for an article of this size, which is generally around four paragraphs and we have nine here.

There are fifteen references used in the lead. Information in the lead is generally only referenced when it is potentially controversial and isn't mentioned in the main body of text.

There is a significant amount of unsourced information. At a quick count, I note 36 paragraphs or sections that are wholly or substantially unsourced. This would be the major point I would note that needs fixing.

There is a decent amount of WP:PUFFERY contained within the article. I notice phrases such as "major Turkish multi-sport club", "world stars" and "considered to be the greatest success in Fenerbahçe's history that aren't supported by references.

The active departments section needs reorganising. I would suggest possibly a table listing each department, year of founding and any other relevant info. Perhaps leave the honours to the individual team pages also, listing any major honours in a separate section here? At the moment, there are far too many headings for a very small amount of information, a table would probably leave the article looking much neater.

I would say that the radio, tv, fenerium and museum sections could all be kept as sub-headings in a single section.

Notable supporters sections are normally frowned upon if I remember correctly and were largely cut from British football articles several years ago. Might be worth looking into to find out.

The club officials table seems largely irrelevant. There is only one name listed and just a table full of empty job titles.

Those are the major issues that I believe need addressing before this can be considered for GA status. There will be more minor issues raised in a thorough review and, as such, there is too much that needs doing. I would suggest opening a peer review if you need more help improving the article before bringing it back for a second GA review. Kosack (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]