Talk:Zlatan Ibrahimović/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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 toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 17:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- His first playing years are organised by team, while his latter years are organised by year. This creates WP:RECENTISM and WP:NEUTRAL issues. I would recommend removing the year subsection headings, and organising by club; for clubs where he stayed a long time, divide by theme, not year.
- On a related note, there's a lot of unnecessary detail. Unless goals are important for other reasons, they shouldn't be given their own sentence.
- WP:WTW look out—"the Catalan giants", "PSG's league conquest", "in idiosyncratic style", etc.
Putting this on hold until the above comments are addressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
A week has passed, and the above comments have not been addressed. I think that the issues with unnecessary detail is enough to fail this nomination. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)