Talk:Steve Zakuani/GA1

GA Review

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

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	^1a. Some minor issues which I'll fix myself.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	^1b. No major issues, but see suggestions.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	^2a. No issues found.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	^2b. Several major issues, including dead links.
	2c. it contains no original research.	^2c. A couple of unsupported claims.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	^3a. No issues found, but see suggestions.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	^3b. No issues found.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	^4. No issues found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	^5. No issues found.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	^6a. No issues found.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	^6b. No issues found.
	7. Overall assessment.

Reviewer: GW (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of today (11 July 2011) this article has begun its first good article review. It will start with an examination of the article's content to make sure that sources say what they purport to say in the article, then the article itself will be judged alongside the six good article criteria, after which the table above will be filled with any notes and concerns. Throughout the review, any suggestions and comments will be offered below. Hopefully, the source examination and the criteria judging stages will be completed within the next couple of days, possibly tomorrow depending on real life commitments.
Timeline:
- 11 July 2011—Review started.
- 12 July 2011—Review completed, conclusion: Put on hold.
- 21 July 2011—Second review completed, conclusion: Pass.

Suggestions

Y Numbers: Although there isn't any concrete guidelines, WP:ORDINAL does suggest that numbers from zero to nine should generally be written out, unless they are in sentences with triple-word numbers which are greater than nine, in which case the use of digits instead of words should be consistent. Therefore, the use of "4th" and "5th" over "fourth" and "fifth" should perhaps be reconsidered, as should the use of "23" over "twenty-three" etc., although there is nothing except convention stopping you from keeping the numbers as they are is that's what you choose, so long as this is consistent across the whole article.

Comment: Done here

Honours: As an unknowledgeable reader (about Zakuani, not football in general) it came as a bit of a surprise to see the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup titles in the Honours section of the article when no mention of these had been made in the prosed Professional section of the article. The Honours section should really act as a listed summary for titles described in the main prose.

Comment

1a.^ List of concerns:

Y "Zakuani became cocky and brash while not focusing on schoolwork. He was released by 2003" → "Zakuani became cocky and brash while not focusing on schoolwork, and he was released from Arsenal by 2003."
Y "He tried out but failed..." → "He tried out, but failed..." or "He unsuccessfully tried out..."
Y "...spotted by the University of Akron at development centre..." → "...spotted by the University of Akron at a development centre"
Y "Zakuani scored six goals his freshman season..." → "Zakuani scored six goals in his freshman season"
? "League Cup" in the statistics table doesn't make it clear it's referring to the play-offs
Y "Cleavland" → "Cleveland"

1b.^ See suggestions re: consistent formatting of numbers

2a.^ There is a reference section containing external links to all sources

2b.^ Several major issues:

Ref 1: "released by 2003"—source actually says 2002
Y Ref 5: 404 error (dead link)
Y Ref 6: 404 error (dead link)
Y Ref 9: 404 error (dead link)
Y Ref 10: 404 error (dead link)
Y "MLS player profile in External Links section: 404 error (dead link)
Y Ref 23: Stats for 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup absent (resolved via replies section)

2c.^ Two claims unsupported:

Y Stats for the 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup
Y 2009 and 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup titles

3a.^ See suggestion re: honours

3b.^ The article does not go into unnecessary detail

4.^ The article is neutral to the unknowledgeable reader

5.^ The article has no recent history of edit warring

6a.^ 1/1 images are tagged with a valid copyright status

6b.^ A suitable photograph of the subject has been placed into the article's infobox, so clear that it leaves no ambiguity and therefore requires no caption

Replies

I've addressed each one of these with the lone exception being "7 assists" only because it appears in a context where digits are being used to talk about player statistics. Since "20 goals" appears right before and "23 games" appears right after, I think "seven assists" would be weird in this particular context. I don't want this to be the cause of failing the GA review though, so if you still disagree, I'm happy to change it. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding of "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures" is that it is correct as is. Assists:Game is a ratio where the numbers are being compared to each other. I don't feel strongly about it at all but do lean towards no change. Not a big deal if it is changed though. Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that if two numbers are used in the same context like, they're being compared, therefore they should all be either written full term, or in digits. I personally would write them out since that's what I was taught at school, but if you want to leave them as digits then I've no objections. GW (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all of the ref problems except for the USOC statistics. I'm still looking for an online source for that. I have them in the club's media guide book, so if all else fails, I'll reference that. I'll keep looking before I switch. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked this awhile back so that was my bad. There should not have been any deadlinks remaining and I dropped the ball over the last month or so on it.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew those stats were going to be an issue. I am for gutting that table since it was hard enough to get it to the state it is now. There is a mention on the talk page about this. What do you think if you cannot find RS, Skoty?Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given how long it took for this review to get started I wasn't surprised to see deadlinks. If you need to use a book as a reference, that's fine; there's no obligation for all references on Wikipedia to be online. I obviously won't have it to hand but I'll assume good faith. GW (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some prose covering both USOC championships and a note on each that Zakuani was a starter in both finals. I've included refs for all of the new prose. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted, I've updated the review accordingly (I'll update the table when all issues are resolved) GW (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catches copy editing wise and thank you for the thorough review.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GW. Can we get some advice from you on the statistics table? I cannot find a source to get those cells in the stats table sourced so I wanted to get your opinion on the choices available. 1)Replace the template that makes the table so that it only spells out league games 2)Remove the table altogether until sources can be found for those cells 3)Add multiple references to those cells (for example: There would be 4 refs for the 2009 Open Cup "Apps" cell). Conversely, we could consider it those couple cells as having material not "likely to be challenged" :) Let us know what you think and we will get it squared immediately. Cptnono (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my own work, I make sure all stats are referenced, or else they're not put in at all since any unreferenced material in a BLP can be removed without haste. However, I often look at FAs for good examples to provide inspiration on good sports article writing, and I noticed that a lack of referenced stats doesn't seem to have prevented Thierry Henry from achieving FA status. So if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for Zakuani, and if the rest of the table is good, then it's fair to AGF. I don't like it, but I won't let it obstruct a positive GA. Furthermore, apologies for the delay—my laptop's broke with spectacular timing. But I'm sure you both were at the match last night so I'm sure this was the last thing on your mind. I'm afraid to say I'm a lifelong United fan though... sorry! GW (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]