Talk:Manchester United F.C./GA2
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- ~ See 4
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Vast swathes of the article are completely uncited in the aerly sections, and there are a few cn tags later on. This needs a lot of work, and I've no idea why it was ticked off the to do list. References used look good, but ref 3 needs publisher. I suppose [1] is ok.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Pretty good, although I can't see any information about the opposition to Glazer, which is surely quite important
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Some areas aren't necessarily biased, but are not really encyclopaedic ,eg: "crop of youthful players". "nurturing his new generation of "babes"", "hovering worrying close to the relegation zone" etc...
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Well illustrated. The logo seems to be used correctly with the FUR. Images should have alt text, although not required for GA.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Manchester City F.C. is an FA that could be used for other advice about improvements
- 5 dead links: [2]
- Thanks for reviewing the article. Could you please be more specific with regards to what you believe requires citations.
Wikipedia policy requires that a good article "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", which with the exception of the two citation needed that have been tagged (for which I am looking for references), I believe this article does. Citations are not required for information that is unlikely to be challenged, such as league finishes and results, and this is evident in both the Manchester CIty and Arsenal articles. At any rate, I don't think 'vast swathes' is accurate.
Regards, Glazer protest coverage, there is dispute on the discussion page as to whether this would violate the Recentism policy.
Dead links etc., thanks for pointing out, will fix immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlock01 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate the work you have done on this article, but have you seen the level of referencing on GAs: look at Manchester City F.C. (an FA) - pretty much that level is required at GA. In relation to that, there are vast swathes of uncited material. There are many paragraphs without citations, and they do need them - that is the reason it was delisted Talk:Manchester United F.C./GA1. Jhbuk (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC) By the way, this is more to do with 2c: no original research - if there are no citations in a paragraph, how do we know where the infomation came from? Jhbuk (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
About the Glazer opposition; considering it happened 5 years ago, and is still reasonably controversial today, I think it could probably do with at least a couple of sentences about it, although it's not vital. Jhbuk (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Right. Added references to everything. Every paragraph now has a reference, and in many cases, several.
Fixed all dead links.
Reworded unencyclopaedic phrases.
Added section about Glazer protests and 'Red Knights' bid.
Added publisher to ref 3.
I think I've covered everything you mentioned, but please let me know if there is anything else. Thanks. Tomlock01 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)