Talk:Tsgabu Grmay/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 21:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this over the next few days. Relentlessly (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.	This is the big problem with this article. The prose is not bad per se, in that the spelling and grammar are generally OK (a few details to follow). However, the general style is not engaging. This is clearly due to a lack of material: a large proportion of the article is nothing more than a list of results converted into full sentences. Take, for example, the 2012 season section. There is only one sentence that does not boil down to a result. To be honest, this is a problem with most of the article. Furthermore, a number of items in the article are downright odd. Take, for instance, "He finished 51st overall, and came eighth in the young rider classification only 16 seconds behind Peter Sagan of Tinkoff-Saxo." Why is that relevant? Sagan was not targeting either the general or youth classifications, so this is a fairly incidental achievement. The general theme is that the article is a list of facts without any unifying narrative or context. Were the results good? Was he trying for better results? Was he helping a teammate? Some details: "UCI ProTeam": They are known as UCI WorldTeams now. "two time" and "one time" need hyphenating World Cycling Centre or World Cycling Center? You use one in the body, one in the infobox. The sentence starting "Tsgabu ended the season in Denmark..." This is badly worded and needs dividing up into two sentences. The same with the sentence starting "Following the Ronde van Zeeland Seaports ..." "single day" needs hyphenating
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	These are generally OK, but I can't help but feel the lead section is inadequate. It should be an engaging introduction to the subject, establishing notability and outlining the key aspects of the article. Right now it feels somewhat like the rest of the article: a fairly plain list of facts.
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.
	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).	The references are pretty much all fine. One or two are slightly questionable (the team's website is not a secondary source, for instance, and I can't judge the reliability of ethiosports.com because the website is down) but I don't think it's a problem.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There's some questionable stuff. For instance, "he flew to Norway to ride the Tour des Fjords, but was forced to abandon after the fourth stage". This is cited to a list of results. How do we know he flew? How do we know he was forced to withdraw?
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The stage victory in Taiwan is supposed to be a significant achievement, but you deal with it in a few words without describing how the race was won. This is important, I think.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Though the fact that one image is simply a crop of another that is included in the article is a bit odd.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for 7 days. This is quite a long way from being a GA, I think, but you've got a week to try to address it. Relentlessly (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] This has been on hold for a week with no input from the nominator, so it's a fail, sadly. Relentlessly (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]