Talk:Phil Jevons/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: NapHit (talk · contribs) 21:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I will start the review shortly. NapHit (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Lead is not big enough, per WP:LEAD it should summarise the content of the article. We have a total of three sentences which hardly touch on the article, indeed one sentence is a POV about a goal, which has no place in encyclopaedic article

   Too much use of journalistic tone: "handed his first start", "new campaign" "instant hit"

   Too many sentences starting On such and such a date, just reads like a list and the prose doesn't flow

   "Despite his reputation for frequently scoring in the youth and reserve sides, he failed to break through into the first-team squad on a regular basis. But, he made his first team debut on 10 March 1999 coming on as a 38th minute substitute for Nick Barmby in a 2–1 Premier League victory over Blackburn Rovers at Ewood Park." sentence should be the other way around

   On 9 October 2001, he scored a long-range goal in extra time of a League Cup fixture against Liverpool to send Grimsby through to the next round knocking Liverpool out. poorly written what round was it? provide some context, takes an age to get to the point

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   the score lines should have end ashes instead of hyphens, ref 39 no need to SHOUT, just write it out normally, not convinced ref 60 or 61 are reliable or toffee web for that matter

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article needs a lot of expansion, the Everton is same size as the yeovil section, despite the fact he played five times the number of games he did for everton, would expect a lot more content.

   would also expect a style of play section

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Article is poorly written, not broad in its coverage as there is style of play section, which is common for player articles and section need expanding. Would expect a lot more content. Also some of the references do not appear to be reliable. Would suggest a peer review, GA nomination is not a substitute for this. NapHit (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)