Talk:Rafael Nadal/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 17:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've chosen to fail this as I feel it doesn't meet the good article criteria. My main concern is with the reliability of sources, as there are so many dead and redirectable links. While prose is sufficient in some areas, it is unclear in certain others. Just looking at the first three sections, there are problems which need addressing:
- Ideally there should be no references in the lead because it acts as a summary for the entire article. The notion is anything mentioned there will be developed further and cited, where appropriate. In this case, there are plenty of footnotes which are not presented in accordance of Wikipedia guidelines. Avoid WP:WEASEL statements: "He is considered one of the greatest players of all time" – by whom?
- "Nadal supports football clubs Real Madrid and RCD Mallorca", why does this merit a mention in early life? Likewise his win at the French Open, I thought that would come under his playing career.
- Several instances of no in-line citations; where is the refs to back up "By the age of 17, he beat Roger Federer the first time they played and became the youngest man to reach the third round at Wimbledon since Boris Becker." for example?
- "Interestingly, had he won, he would have faced Roger Federer in the next round", why is that interesting for?
- "Later that year, Nadal played his first match against world No. 1 Roger Federer at the 2004 Miami Masters", is Federer World No. 1 now, or then, or is it his title?
- "he helped Spain clinch the 2004 title", avoid sports journalse terminology.
- No citation to back up "Immediately after Wimbledon, Nadal won 16 consecutive matches and three consecutive tournaments, bringing his ranking to world No. 2 on 25 July 2005."
- Dab link problem.
I would advise you to have a look at an article, similar to this one which already meets the criteria for ideas on how to structure it. You should then take this for a peer review to iron out issues. The article is comprehensive and well illustrated, but that's really all it has going for it – falls short under referencing. Feel free to contact me if you think otherwise, or need some assistance. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)