Talk:Maria Sharapova/GA4
Good article reassessment
[edit]I have nominated it for reassessment as it is in a very poor state indeed.
Against the GA criteria, I have the following summaries:
1. Well written:
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; 
Done
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. 
Not done
- We've got lists of quotes and notable matches. We've got an inadequate lead per WP:LEAD.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; Not done
- Citations are not consistently formatted.
(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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; Not done
- Many "facts" have no citations.
(c) it contains no original research. style="background:#FFC7C7;color:black;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-no"|No
3. Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Done
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Not done
- The article is massive and goes into absolute minutae about the results of every match, down to individual set scores. 1/3 of the article contains various year-by-year, result-by-result summaries as well.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Done
- So much so that the prose is incredibly dull, just result after result after result...
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Not done
- Some editors have expressed concern over the POV/OR of the "notable" matches and the non-encyclopedic nature of the "quotations" section. These editors have also attempted to remove said issues but have been continually reverted by User:Tennis expert, effectively creating an edit war.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; Done
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Done
- Actually very nicely illustrated, but easy with the subject matter.