Jump to content

Talk:Rebecca Peterson/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 14:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid to say that despite the efforts of the nominator in expanding this article, this GA review will have to be quick failed due to numerous failures to comply with the relevant criteria at Wikipedia:GA. In this case of this particular article, I noted several problems which stand in its way of achieving GA status at this time.

Like the article on Barbora Krejčíková from before, the primary issue is that the entry is under-referenced in both the prose, and the career statistics tables, with several entire paragraphs and sentences lacking a single reference. Some of the prose in the article is messy, chunky, non-neutral, informal and inconsistent with a plethora of MOS guidelines, such as using the subject's first name, which is against MOS:SURNAME and using contractions in violation of MOS:CONTRACTION. The writing contained within the article makes it looks like the editor does not have a good grasp of formal English writing skills, which will need urgent addressing. MWright96 (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore some of the references are incorrectly formatted and lack the author(s) (if any), the date it was published and the date it was accessed. There are some references that are not-written in English and are not correctly formatted to show the language and do not have the original title in the original language in the main title= field and the translated English title in the trans-title= field. The lead also mentions certain tournaments from certain years when it should summarise her entire career in about two or four paragraphs.

I strongly suggest that these issues be resolved meticulously and review similar tennis player biographies that are at GA-level. Also, I would advise that the article be taken to WP:PR where it can go for a forensic review before it can be nominated at GAN for a second time. MWright96 (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]