Talk:Ben Woodburn

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ben Woodburn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 09:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Review

I'll be happy to review this and should complete it this week. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Sorry, but this one is a long way short of GA standard. There is an immediate problem with WP:LEAD which has only three sentences split into two paragraphs and does not adequately summarise the article content. As soon as I began reading, I had to place the lead too short template. There is a recurring lack of context because it has been written, in parts, like a newspaper report with expressions like "off the bench" which need to be rephrased so that someone who is new to football can understand them. An example of missing context is the reference to the village of Rainhill in the first section: presumably LFC have accommodation there? Other information reads as if it has been surmised from statistical data. As far as readable prose goes, the article is a collection of facts without narrative flow and, as many of the facts are trivial, the article fails broad in coverage by going into too much detail.

The combination of news and statistics leads me to the sources used and they are without exception either news or statistical websites. Some of them, like Soccerway, I would consider dubious and probably don't meet WP:RS. Another appears to be a fansite and those cannot be considered reliable. You need to be absolutely sure about source reliability and use statistical data very sparingly. Book sources should be consulted wherever possible. Newspaper reports are okay as a basis for narrative but should be worded to inform the interested reader who is not a football expert. For example, replace "off the bench" with something about substitution.

I've marked the basic criteria anyway so you can see which boxes are ticked and which are not. The main problems are the lead and the prose. I'm dubious about words to watch but that is prose-related here because of the news report style. I've left reliable sources in abeyance because, if that were the only issue, I would have placed the review on hold. I've left broad in coverage as neutral because the problems there have been brought about by the prose and the sources. Given the problems with the prose, the lead and the need for a cleanup template, I cannot place the review on hold as WP:GAFAIL applies. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)