Talk:Herbert Chapman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes (talk · contribs) 15:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have had a quick first look at this. Certainly no major issues leaping out of the page so it goes to full review. Hope to have time for a detailed read tomorrow. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report on GA criteria

There was an issue with the introduction having five paragraphs when WP:LEAD specifies a maximum of four. Fortunately, the content easily lent itself to a merger between two of the paragraphs so there are now four. I was a bit concerned to find a non-word like "trophyless" (like something in a Sun headline) in the intro but, from what I can see so far, that may have been an isolated incident. The article is on the whole looking like it is okay but I still need to check the links and citations and will report again shortly. Not marking any of the criteria (see above) just yet. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well written:

the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

The intro as presented was in breach of WP:LEAD. I've attempted to remedy it in terms of the number of paragraphs but it should still be subject to revision to make sure it effectively summarises the whole article. I have done a lot of copyediting as I have been reviewing because numerous grammatical and wording edits were needed and I would say that the article still needs much more revision. A common fault is the habit of opening sentences with "however" or "but" – I have corrected most if not all of those. I am concerned too that, the way it is written, it looks like much of it has been copied from the sources and it reads in places, especially the Arsenal section, like newspaper reports. I am therefore failing the "well written" criterion. (11 August)

Following another copyedit by me as reviewer, the prose is now satisfactory and the article passes this criterion. (21 August)

Verifiable with no original research:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
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;
it contains no original research; and
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

I'm happy that there is no OR or COPYVIO but several citations are required throughout and I've flagged these where necessary. This criterion fails pending the citations. (11 August)

There are now only three citations needed and I would be happy if the relevant statements are removed instead. I've temporarily rated this criterion as "don't know" and will leave the review on hold for another week. (21 August)

With those three citations now in place, this is a pass. (21 August)

Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral:

it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable:

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I'm placing the review on hold for seven days. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review @Boca Jóvenes:, I've added citations where necessary. This article is mostly the work of Qwghlm, it's been years since anyone's touched this but I nominated this for GA because it comfortably meets the comprehensive criteria. I think the prose is adequate, but I'll have a look and correct any confusing sentences (if I can spot any) in the meantime. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boca Jóvenes: it's been over seven days now, any update on this? Lemonade51 (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Lemonade51:. Sorry about the delay, I've not been available. Okay, I've done another copyedit because the prose was still not satisfactory. The original author used terms like "also" and "however" to excess, for example, and there were a lot of weak constructions and poor choices of wording. I'm happy with that aspect now, but I've identified three citation needs. Two of these concern the McGrory story and I'd like to see another one to support the Sunday Express sentence under "Legacy". If these can be provided or, if preferred, the relevant statements are removed, then I'll be happy to award the article a GA pass. I'll leave it on hold for the time being. See also the additional comments and rating changes in the criteria section above. Thanks. BoJó | talk 15:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Boca Jóvenes: for taking the time out to copyedit, it's much appreciated. I've added the citations now. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the citations so quickly, @Lemonade51: and I'll certainly pass the article as a GA now. I'm really pleased because Mr Chapman is such a notable figure in football history. All the best. BoJó | talk 17:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]