Talk:Vratislav Lokvenc/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs) 18:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article, and provide my Good Article review comments over the next several days. I frequently edit sports articles, but I am not a frequent writer on association football topics, so I have asked User:GiantSnowman, a long-time editor of Wikipedia football articles to help me review the article's substance and he will assist with any specialized knowledge that is required. I will be responsible for making sure the article otherwise adheres to the Good Article criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review checklist

Items below to be checked off as review is completed, or identified deficiencies are corrected by article nominator.

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;  Done and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.  Done

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;  Done

(b) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;  Done and

(c) it contains no original research.  Done

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;  Done and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).  Done

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.  Done

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.  Done

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;  Done and

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.  Done

GA review comments

1. Footnotes support referenced text:

(a) German language footnote links - checked by User:Gerda Arendt  Done

(b) Czech language footnote links - checked by User:Vejvančický  Done - I've checked all the Czech references available online, they are reliable and support the claims in the article in a way which doesn't violate WP:COPYVIO. I can't check the refs supported by the book Český a československý fotbal – lexikon osobností a klubů as I don't have a copy in my hands, but I'd WP:AGF and accept the refs as I know User:Cloudz679 as a very competent and careful editor working on Czech-related topics. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(c) English language footnotes and external links - checked by Dirtlawyer1

(1) Footnote 29 (Stokkermans, Karel) link seems not to be working.

Working here.  Done

(2) I noted a number of footnoted sports articles that included the name of the sportswriter, but you did not include the name in your footnote. Please consider including the names of the writers when available.

I have gone through and added all available information regarding the authors.  Done

(3) Footnote 45 (Mitch Phillips) is missing a retrieval date, and the publication date appears to be off by a day.

Don't know what you see but I see "Saturday 17 June 2006 01.16 BST" under his name. Author information added.  Done

(4) Footnote 47 (Karel Janicek) publication date appears to be off by a day.

Don't know what you see but I see "Wednesday 21 June 2006 02.41 BST" under his name. Author information added.  Done

(5) Footnote 50 (HDN) source includes some criticism of his productivity at that stage of his career; you may consider of you want to include some reference to the comparison to Koller. Or you could keep it positive and let the statistics speak for themselves.

Well as you said, the statistics can speak for themselves, 20 goals in two seasons isn't bad in my opinion. Of course he (and everybody else) could not score as many as Koller.

Nothing further required; nominator's discretion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

(6) Footnote 53 reflects a discrepancy of 2 goals (143 in source vs. 145 in WP article).

Well spotted. Fixed.  Done

(EL2) Second external link reflects a height of 1.92 m; WP states a height of 1.96 m.

UEFA has 1.96, added inline citation.  Done

These are minor issues to chew on while I complete my review of the text. Czech and German footnotes are apparently in good shape per Vejvančický and Gerda's reviews of them. On the substance, footnotes appear to properly support referenced text in all cases. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: Is there anything else? C679 13:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

2. Text to be edited/improved/clarified:

• (a) Where did this guy develop before his professional career began? High school, university, amateur club team? It seems we are missing a life element here, and this might be incorporated with a chronological section about his birth place, family, etc., prior to the pro career section.

C679, this appears to be a not insignificant omission in the subject's basic life history per 3(a) of the GA review checklist. Do we not have anything from which to cobble together an early years section based on birth, family, education, and grade school/high school sports career? If not, let me know, because we're down to the last two or three items. The article would clearly be improved by the presence of such a section, but I know you cannot invent sources and content out of thin air. Please advise.

Nominator has added as much as available sources support.  Done

• (b) Word choice: "started his professional career in the 1992–93 season" would read better as "started his professional career during the 1992–93 season".  Done
• (c) Same comment as above: "scored 25 goals in the 2011–12 season".  Done
• (d) Explanation needed: either explain "away goals rule" or link to appropriate article or section.  Done
• (e) Suggest replacing "German Bundesliga side Kaiserslautern in 2000, agreeing the move" with "FC Kaiserslautern of the German Bundesliga in 2000, agreeing to the move". Similarly, recommend replacing "Bundesliga side VfL Bochum" with "VfL Bochum of the Bundesliga", and "2. Bundesliga side Ingolstadt" with "Ingolstadt of 2. Bundesliga".  Done
• (f) Explanation needed: either explain "after the first match had finished goalless, Lokvenc scored the only goal in the second leg to eliminate the Czech team", or link to "two-legged tie".  Done
• (g) Is this proper in British English: "but his side were beaten"? If so, please tag the article as using Br E.  Done
• (h) Worthy of greater explanation: "claimed the double".  Done
• (i) Suggest replacing "announced that Lokvenc would be sold in April 2004" to "announced that Lokvenc's rights would be sold in April 2004".
• (j) I this correct in British English: "Bochum were relegated"? If so, see comment above.  Done
• (k) Is "signed for Red Bull Salzburg" correct in Br E, or should "for" be replaced with "with"?
• (l) "Germany international players" is unclear: do you mean "German national team members" or "German international players"?  Done
• (m) "Runners-up" should be hyphenated.  Done
• (n) Missing article adjective "represented his country at the under-21 level".

 Not done Appears to be British English. See [1]

Fair enough. Nothing further required on this point.

• (o) There are two references to goals off headers; is there anywhere they can be linked to an explanation of "header"?  Done
• (p) Is hyphenated "team-mate" still preferred in Br E?  Done
• (q) Suggest linking "yellow card".  Done
• (r) Consider incorporating the very brief "style of player" section somewhere in the main narrative. It seems oddly alone, and the brief mentions seem not to merit a separate section.

 Not done doesn't seem to be part of the criteria, and other similar articles include this. May be expanded in the future.

Here's the problem C679: I don't dispute that "style of play" is used in similar, well-written association football articles, but here there are only two brief sentences and practically no actual substance about the subject's style of play. A separate section for two sentences and practically no substance is stylistically awkward. MOS offers the follow advice . . . Per WP:BETTER: "Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. . . . One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs." Per MOS:LAYOUT: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose."  Done

My MOS comments here apply equally to my editorial comment (s) immediately below. Please what you are able and willing to do.  Done

• (s) Consider merging the "personal life" and "post-playing career" sections. The "post-playing career" section seems to be artificially forced under "club career". Both sections are very brief and isolated from the rest of the narrative, and should be better incorporated into the article as a whole.

 Not done

See generally applicable review comment immediately above.

• (t) It is unclear whether the brief mention of playing in the Czech Fourth Division is appropriately included in "post-playing career," or should be added to the end of the "club career" section. Is a footballer still not considered "active" while playing in the fourth division? This should include the year(s) of play for clarity.

Have given a little more context, unfortunately years do not seem to be readily available. Other recommended changes have been made. C679 18:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If there are no sources for the years, it is what it is. Nothing further required on this point.  Done

Closing comment

GA Review director chastising reviewer for tardy follow-up

This nomination is being put back into the GAN reviewing pool. The review is now 75 days old, the third oldest, and the current reviewer has not posted any new review material to the review page since May 20, despite reminders on Dirtlawyer1's talk page and a ping here. There is another review by him that has not been attended to in over two months, Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA1, which has been ongoing for over 135 days, the oldest outstanding review by far. As I noted on the older review, the reviewer has not returned there since first being reminded in early July, despite over 1300 Wikipedia edits in the interim. It is not fair for a nominator to have to wait over two months once having responded to the initial review the day after it was made. With the GA Cup about to start its second round, this nomination is likely to be picked up by a new reviewer in a matter of days, and finished with reasonable dispatch. As I pointed out on Dirtlawyer1's talk page earlier this week, the Good Article instructions page says, Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. This commitment has not been met here, and it's time to find a new reviewer who will meet it. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC) @BlueMoonset: Remaining comments regarding text completed above. I interpreted your last user talk message as permitting me to complete these reviews by today, and have spent significant time working on both of them since the beginning of the week. This GA review only remains for the author/nominator to complete the relatively minor text edits above. I think you will agree, after reviewing my complete set of comments above, including those added today, that this was a very thorough, if not timely review. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC) I have no idea how a very clear "before Friday" could be interpreted as "including Friday" (today), but I'll let that pass since the review has been completed, which is what has been needed all along. I'll be restoring this as the active review; thank you for your commitment on my talk page to be prompt in future responses here. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Dirtlawyer1, it has been ten days since C679 responded above to your review; please continue the process right away. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer's summary comments

@Cloudz679: All but one of the minor grammatical issues have been ticked as "done"; there remain minor word-choice questions under comments 2(i) and (k). There also remain two or three structural issues to be addressed under comments 2(a), (r) and (s); please see my added comments above on those points. We're nearly done here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: 2i and 2k are British English. Article talk page is already marked as such. 2a - no, I rechecked sources and these only highlight his highs, not his beginnings at all. 2r hasn't been merged, it is a candidate for future expansion. Per 2s, "personal life" has been merged, you made a convincing point. I added more to the other section and I hope you will agree it is well positioned now. Have also added a touch of clarity on 2t. Thanks, C679 14:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Cloudz679: Thank you for your efforts, and for going the last mile. I recognize that you cannot invent sources for the subject's "early years" background which don't exist. I'm passing this as it stands. Well done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

GA review: Career statistics

The career statistics table here needs to be converted to match the MOS here. GiantSnowman 12:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.