Talk:Borussia Dortmund/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 19:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Kosack (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Foundation and early years

• "Father Dewald was blocked at the door", we could do with more explanation as to who Dewald was as he's mentioned her with no real context.
• Only one source is included in this section and it ends midway through the first paragraph. There's also a cita3needed tag here.

Crest

• I'm not sure the use of the former club badges in a gallery would qualify under the fair-use criteria.

Organisation and finance

• Do we really need an annual breakdown on the club's finances? Not to mention it only covers a five year span.

Affiliated clubs

• I'm not sure on the relevance of this section, certainly not in its current form. It has little actual prose and is just repeating the basic information for each link.

Training ground

• This section is scoring quite strongly on the copyvio tool and there seems to be some clear copy and pasting of two parts.

Records

• This section is a bit of a jumble really with no obvious inclusion criteria or sourcing in places. For example, "On 1 September 1993, BVB and Dynamo Dresden earned a total of five red cards between them", has no real explanation. Also, entries like "The first goal ever scored in Bundesliga play was by Dortmund's Friedhelm Konietzka against Werder Bremen" are not really records.

References

• Some of the overall formatting of refs is a little muddled here.
• Notes (like ref 42) should really be placed in a standalone section rather than included in the references.
• Avoid shouting in ref titles, per WP:ALLCAPS.
• There are three refs, 31, 32 and 33, that all have the same title and no further info.

Hi Brotato, thanks for taking up a nomination. However, it's important to familarise yourself with the GA criteria to ensure an article is ready when you nominate it. For example, the sourcing here is rather weak, the majority of the history section is seemingly unsourced and there is even a citation needed tag on the text. Unfortunately, there are too many concerns for this to really be promoted from a single review so I'll be failing this. I've listed some of the major points above, to give you something to work towards. If you have any questions then please feel free to contact me. Kosack (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)