User:ArnabSaha/sandbox/GA

East Bengal F.C. GA Review

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

Reviewer: HawkAussie (talk · contribs) 23:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Y

   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Y

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): Y

   b (citations to reliable sources): Y

   c (OR): Y

   d (copyvio and plagiarism): Y

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Y

   b (focused): Y

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Y

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: Y

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): Y

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Y

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Looking at this article from a quick point, I can say that is a long way for criteria one with that being under well written as the lead is way too short for an article which you hope to get an GA while the prose in the history is too short for a team that was formed in 1920. There is also the fact that I see three sections that have the [citation needed] section which also would be a red flag if it wasn't for the fact that the prose wasn't up to date. Until these steps are completed I'm going to have quick fail this. HawkAussie (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

East Bengal Ultras GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 12:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up. Kosack (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is rather short, consisting of just two sentences. I would say we should be looking for around two paragraphs given the size of the article. Y

Support

• Section is completely unsourced. Y
• Links are needed for East Bengal F.C. and IFA Shield. Y

Initial Days: 2013-2016

• What is reference two doing? Also, the name doesn't need bolding at this point. Y
• "They made the right noise by their first big Tifo", this doesn't remake sense. Y
• Sourcing is again an issue here. Y

Growth of Ultras Culture: 2017-present

• No need for words like atmosphere and youth derbies to be capitalised. Y

Chants and Slogans

• I'm not sure what use foreign language quotes are, especially when they're not even attributed. Y

Recognition

• Don't disguise external links as wikilinks. Y
• This section seems to be just an indiscriminate list, almost like promotional content. Y

References

• Don't use shouting in ref titles, per WP:ALLCAPS. Y

Unfortunately, I'll be failing this review as the article is some way off meeting the GA criteria. There are large portions of unsourced information and I have concerns over the WP:NPOV of the page. Phrases like "East Bengal Ultras has helped to amass all the fan clubs under one roof and raises the decibel level together from the stands" and "This was the perfect opportunity for a non-Indian football fan to get the hype and the passion surrounding the beautiful game in India" which are prevalent throughout sound more like a promotion for the group rather than an encyclopedia page. Y

Grammar is an issue as well, I would suggest submitting the article for a copyedit by a member of the WP:GOCE. On top of the few issues I included above, there is too much work to be reasonably managed in a single review. Kosack (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Y

Kolkata Metro GA Review

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 07:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 20, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Many passages use non-conventional English or more juvenile forms that aren't appropriate for the expected audience. In the first body paragraph alone, there's phrases like "An East-West railway connection “East-West tube railway” for the city" (redundancies), "to allow people reach their workplaces on time" (goes without saying), " He also mentioned a north-south line back then". The rest has issues with grammar and general flow. The sections are also problematic, as there are long lists of stations in each line's subsection (which are unnecessary), redundant tables with no accompanying prose, and far too much information on fares (with more tables). Y

2. Verifiable?: Many unsourced paragraphs and improperly formatted citations that are missing publisher information, author information, or dates. Y

3. Broad in coverage?: The history section is a bit short compared to the rest of the article. Y

4. Neutral point of view?: Not seeing any issues, but the other problems overshadowed this. Y

5. Stable?: Pass Y

6. Images?: Few and far between. A better logo is needed and a better map could be made. Y

This article is a long ways from meeting GA standards and would need some serious dedication to get up to that point. Y

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— SounderBruce 07:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

East Bengal Ultras GA Review 2

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 14:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Picking this one up, review coming soon. Kosack (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

• The North Stand is mentioned here but not in the text, so it needs a source. Y

Lead

• "also known as the Bangal Brigade (due to the ethnicity of majority of the fanbase)", this appears to be a direct copy and paste from ref 3. Information needs to be presented in your own words.
• "the vocal supporters' movement for Indian club", a few issues with this sentence. I'm not sure what vocal is adding here and I'm not really sure a fan group can be described as a "movement" either. Also, add football with a link after Indian. Y
• Link I-League. Y
• They are the first > They were... Y
• Might be worth using the full pyrotechnic show and providing a link for the uninitiated. Y
• "Currently, they have around 25 chants and slogans", source? Also, words like currently should generally be avoided as they are prone to becoming outdated. Y
• "In 2019-20 I-League season" > In the... Y
• Also, year span ranges in seasons should use an endash. Y
• "and broke the previous record of" > breaking the previous record of... Y
• "which had also been set by the East Bengal Ultras" > which the group had also set. Y

Supported club

• Link East Bengal to the club. Y
• "lighting up the torches" > lighting torches... Y
• This section seems to be another copy and paste, this time of ref 5.

Initial years: 2013–2016

• The caption could do with more information, a year perhaps? Y
• No need to link Bengaluru FC twice. Y
• One or two phrases that are a bit journalistic, things like "created history" and "commanding display" are not very encyclopedic. Y

Pyro show

• "Fans sang in their loudest voices", again comes across very promotional and journalistic. Y

Tifos

• "The 2018–19 saw East Bengal FC", something missing here. Y
• Kolkata Derby is already linked previously. Y
• "The East Bengal Ultras won the fan battles", I can't see anything to imply that in the source? Y
• "This tifo became an instant hit among the fans", again the source doesn't seem to support this. Y
• "covered by BBC" > the BBC. Y
• No need to link the club again here. Y
• "FIFA world cup Qualifiers", capitalise World Cup. Add links for the World Cup, Bangladesh and the 2011 ICC World Cup. Y
• "the first game of 2019-20 I-League campaign" >the 2019... Also the season range requires an endash. Y

Controversy

• "when during the 2019-20 I-League first leg Kolkata Derby", endash for the season range and no need for the season or Derby link, both used previously. Y
• Probably worth mentioning why the NRC was controversial amongst the fans. Y
• "political groups making an issue of the situation", this sounds a bit like taking sides and needs to be more neutral. Y

Chants and slogans

• "East Bengal Ultras has always" > have always... Y
• "that echoed through the stands", too journalistic. Y
• No need to link the side again and amend the Liverpool link to F.C., rather than FC. Y

References

• Avoid shouting in ref titles, per WP:ALLCAPS. Y
• Why is Where Hrisav Blogs a reliable source? Y
• A few of the refs used here have authors available, make sure they are all properly attributed.
• Refs 32 and 34 appear to be the same. Merge them and add publishing information. Y

I was hoping this was going through this time, but it's a quick fail again I'm afraid. The standard of writing has improved considerably since my first review in December, but there are still issues to iron out. These would have been workable in a review, however the use of material that is literally word for word the same as sources is a big issue. That's the main reason I'm failing this again, as there are at leaat two significant portions of the article that need rewriting entirely and a few other sentence clashes according to the copyvio detector. I would suggest that you rewrite these sections in your own words (and any others that may fall foul of this) and address the issues I've listed above here. Once these have been done, I would highly recommend you submit this at WP:GOCE or seek a copyedit from a user that can provide a good review of the article. This will help iron out the minor grammar issues that seem to be creeping in. At that point, the article is likely to be ready for another nomination, one which it should be able to pass. Kosack (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

SC East Bengal GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 12:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello ArnabSaha, I'll be reviewing this article and will posting further comments within the next few days. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, thanks  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  13:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Putting the article on hold for a week, due to recent events surrounding the subject and on nominator's request. I might add some comments or suggestions during this period. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Pulling it off hold per nom's request, the review will be completed within the next 24 hours. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, I've read through the article once and if asked then I would have said that some of the prose could be improved. But on going down from the section on history, citation by citation, I can't help but notice that there is some issue in almost every line. I can't see the point of continuing instead of just fixing them. I'll list the issues in the comments, that I've spotted till now, just in the subsections on Formation and 1920 – 1930s so you can understand what I'm getting at.

I am almost inclined to fail this nomination but I think this can be fixed with a bit of close attention. If you want I can fail this and help in article improvement which you could nominate again later for someone else to review. Alternatively, I could put it on hold till 30 October and then carry out a complete review, however I'll not put it on hold anymore after that and will just pass or fail it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, I thought MoS issues were solved at GOCE. I would say, fail it. After that, I will solve the issues and reapply at GOCE  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  12:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, okay I'll fail it and will see if I can help out a bit afterwards. Other than the wikilinking, these are all mostly prose issues and not very obvious without looking at the sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, thanks for the review  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

2. Verifiability:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Some plagiarism can be found, specified in the comments below. (update) Resolved for the most part, there might be some close paraphrasing.	Neutral

3. Comprehensiveness:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

4. Neutrality:

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

5. Stability: The article is stable for the most part.
Pass

Notes	Result
No edit warring or content disputes.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is well illustrated with images and other graphics.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images are tagged with appropriate status and fair use rationales on those applicable. One image needs resizing, see comments below.	On hold
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use of images are appropiate and have suitable captions.	Pass

Current status: Fail

Comments

• ArnabSaha, the Earthwig's Copyvio Dectector report pull up a number of violations. Most of these appear to be false positives but some of them needs attending to. You can click on the compare links to see what exactly the violations are for each weblink.

• The first three can be ignored as they have plagiarised from wikipedia instead of the other way around, although I am surprised to see that ESPN has plagarised from wikipedia but in this case the article was posted at a date after the addition was made on wiki.
• The fourth one is a bit complicated though as the violation that it pulls up is the sequence of years in which the club won various championships and other honors which from my educated guess can not be copyrighted. Just to be safe though, perhaps you can stylise the section on "Honours" into a chart format.
• The fifth one is definitely plagarism on wikipedia, most of these are names but some of these are parts of lines which are near copies, it would need some rephrasing and possibly reordering of names to be fixed. The copyvio article is the timeline of EB on Sportstar.
• The sixth one is a forum link which copies from wikipedia with attribution, so can be ignored.
• Other that there doesn't appear to anything major but I would recommend going through the ones with 10–20% confidence at least once and attempt to mitigate them wherever possible, most of these seem to require minor re-ordering of names or rephrasing of phrases if they are genuine violations.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, many big club articles (mostly FAs) use the existing 'honour' format, so I will keep the existing one. And solved the others. Most of them are names/years.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  15:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, looks better now although the following two sentences could be rephrased a bit.

• In cricket, the club won both the Cricket Association of Bengal senior league and senior-division knockout tournament jointly with Mohun Bagan.

• That period saw the rise of the Pancha Pandavas. The five players, P. B. A. Saleh, Ahmed Khan, K. P. Dhanaraj, Appa Rao and P. Venkatesh played together at East Bengal from 1949 to 1953. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

   Done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• The logo of the club also needs to be resized to comply with non-free use rationale guideline. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Tayi Arajakate, didn't datbot reduce the size? the bot does, so I hardly care. OK, I will resize it (it might take some more time).  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Issues with prose and manual of style. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Jorabagan is wikilinked twice and to the article of a neighborhood. The first link refers to a football club for which no article exists so should be delinked. It should also be specified as "Jorabagan Club" instead of just Jorabagan.
• The following line, "They formed East Bengal, as a Sports and Cultural Association in Jorabagan, home of Suresh Chandra, on 1 August 1920" should be modified to specify "in the neighbourhood of Jorabagan". The portion highlighted in red is also not covered by any of the three citations and should be removed, it does not appear to add anything even if it could be otherwise supported by other reference, alternatively you could add another citation which does verify it if you wish.
• Minor, but the bracketed portion, "Goshto (on loan from Mohun Bagan)" should not be in italics.
• The first mention of IFA should be in its unabbreviated form, Indian Football League.
• The following lines, "Because Cameroons 'A' team was already in the First Division the 'B' team could not gain promotion, East Bengal was next in line for promotion. However, more controversy arose since the IFA allowed only two Indian-based clubs in the IFA First Division. (At that time the IFA was a British organization.) This rule had previously deprived clubs like "Kumartuli" and "Town" from entering the First Division. During a governing body meeting of the IFA, the nine British clubs approved East Bengal's promotion. Ironically, two Indian clubs, Mohun Bagan and Aryan, opposed it. East Bengal's efforts led to the abolition of the oppressive Indian club limit rule." could be better phrased better.

• I propose something like the following, "Because Cameroons 'A' team was already in the First Division, the 'B' team was not eligible for promotion. The governing body of the IFA under British rule also had a rule limiting the number of Indian-based clubs in the First Division to two only clubs. The Indian club limit had previously deprived clubs like "Kumartuli" and "Town" from entering the First Division. Petitions were forwarded to the governing body and East Bengal's efforts during this period led to the abolition of the repressive limit on Indian clubs. During the following governing body meeting, the rule was revised where ironically nine British clubs approved East Bengal's promotion while the two Indian clubs, Mohan Bagan and Aryan opposed it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• The following line, "In 1925, East Bengal made IFA First Division debut and Mona Dutta became the maiden goalscorer in the league." needs to mention that he became the maiden goalscorer for the club and not of the league, which is a bit unclear here.

• Issues with verifiability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Among the three citations for the first few lines of the section on formation, the second citation (attributed to TheHardTackle) is unnecessary. Much of the material is otherwise covered by the other two citations. Jorabagan being the home of Suresh Chandra is however not verifiable from any of them, since it is a minor detail, it could probably be removed.
• The following lines, "In the month they formed, the club participated in their maiden tournament in the Hercules Cup, which was a 6-a-side tournament. On 11 August 1920, the club played their first match against Metropolitan College winning 4–0. East Bengal won the tournament." under the subsection of 1920 – 1930s is not supported by an inline citation. Please support it with one or adjust appropriately if there is any inaccuracy.

• The Frontline article seems to partially verify the first line. Although it calls the Hercules Cup, a seven-a-side tournament and states the club won it but doesn't mention any dates or a game with Mohan Bagan. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• The following lines, "Following this, the club became affiliated with the IFA and entered league play in the IFA Second Division. The club finished in third place in their first season. East Bengal first played against Mohun Bagan on 8 August 1921 in the Cooch Behar Cup semi-final match, which ended in a goalless draw. It was an unofficial derby at that time." under the subsection of 1920 – 1930s is not entirely supported by the inline citations. The second citation doesn't verify any of these. The first citation doesn't verify the last line. Both of them are also primary sources, one should have secondary sources for these lines.
• The following line, "In 1924, the club won the Second Division to gain promotion to the IFA First Division after finishing in second place to Cameroons 'B'." contradicts the cited source, both the clubs were joint winners of the Second Division according to it.
• In the following line, "On 28 May 1925, the first official Kolkata Derby was played where Nepal Chakraborty scored the only goal for East Bengal." the date is not verifiable by the source. So would need a citation for that as well.

• Issues with comprehensiveness. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• The Frontline article mentions the first ground of the club which was acquired by the club in 1922 and shared with its rival, Mohan Bagan. This seems to be omitted from the article.