Talk:Persepolis F.C./GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Several sections have bold text for no obvious reason. And I'm not sure the lead is fully reflects everything that is in the article. There are several sentences which have no space after the period. And while the prose is just about OK, it does not flow in places and jumps from one topic to the next in a way which makes the article hard to understand. There is quite a lot of repetition, for example consecutive sentences which begin with "Persepolis". It needs variety, for example using "the club", "the team", or "it" to vary the sentence openings.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are several sections with no references. This is a very big problem for the article. The sources which are cited are in Persian, but are presumably reliable. The section called "Revitalisation" may include OR: for example, "The poor scheduling and mismanagement of both the I.R.I.F.F. and AFC officials led to this unprofessional event." is not sourced and looks like it may be OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It seems to follow the pattern of several other club articles and so covers the major aspects. However, I'm not sure the Anthem section is necessary and if it is, it should be longer (and it needs a ref for the translation, or it would be OR). Also, the history of the club's formation seems very brief and I would like to see more detail. At the moment, it is very sketchy and jumps from one fact to another without any links between them. It makes it difficult to follow and to understand why the information is relevant. For example, why is the Shahin F.C. (1942–1967) section in there? There must be a link with Persepolis, but it is not made clear by the article. Also, the section which is called "Takht Jamshid Cup (1969–1979)" begins "In 1962..." There may be a reason why the fact which follows is essential, but it seems unnecessary as it is written and just makes it hard to follow what is being said. Finally, I am not a big fan of "famous fan" sections, but this would not make me fail the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is a tag at the top of the article which disputes the articles neutrality. There seem to be several examples where the tone of the article suggests a fan wrote it: "Persepolis has had the most impressive record of titles", "The 1990s were a dream decade for the team, with four league championships, two Hazfi Cups, dozens of great players, and renewed support", "The 2002–03 season proved to be extremely difficult", "The poor scheduling and mismanagement of both the I.R.I.F.F. and AFC officials led to this unprofessional event".

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems OK, although I wonder who put up the neutrality tag.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The photo of the Shahin players is PD in Iran, but would it be PD in the US? If not, it cannot be used. The same for the photo of Safar Iranpak, Homayoun Behzadi and Hossein Kalani. The photo of the Azadi stadium lacks author information.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm afraid I'll have to fail the article at the moment as there is too much to fix in one week. There is the start of a good article here, but it needs work. I can see that the nominator (or another editor) has followed the pattern of another club's article here, which is a good idea. I would suggest looking at Manchester United F.C. as this was recently promoted to Featured Article and so shows one of the best examples of an article on a club. I would suggest getting a new editor to have a look and copy-edit the article. And all the sections need fully referencing. Maybe the best way forward is to have the article Peer reviewed: there are some outstanding editors working in this area.

If you would like any further suggestions, please let me know, or if you would like me to look again once the article has been worked on a little more. If you are not happy with this review, you may ask for a reassessment or renominate the article for another reviewer to look at. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)