Talk:Juan Martín del Potro/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article for GA. Nat91 (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I have contributed to this article in the past and I like what the editor has done with it. However, there are things that need to be fixed.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose in the Tennis Career sections doesn't flow well, mainly because it's crowded with scores. The last paragraph in the 2003-2005 sounds very awkward and needs to be reworded.

   I've had a go at this. Spiderone 19:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

   I copyedited a bit too. For GA, it's okay. Nat91 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

   The second paragraph of the lead contains too much information and does not summarise the most important points (for example, the year he qualified for his first GS is irrelevant for the lead). Remember all the points in the lead should be mentioned throughout the article. See WP:LEAD for more information.

   I don't know what else needs mentioning. Spiderone 19:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

   The lead wasn't working for me, to be honest. As I mentioned above, the second paragraph had too many information not suitable for an article lead. It wasn't attrating me as a reader and summarising why the person is notable. I put some work into it. Nat91 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Why aren't there any references in the lead? IIRC, the first and third paragraphs of the lead contained citations.

   I don't think there is anything in the lead that isn't already sourced in the main article. Spiderone 06:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

   I know everything in the lead tends to be cited throughout the article, but it is better for leads to be cited too. Nat91 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   One thing though, Bleacher Report doesn't seem to be a very reliable source.

   I'll try and replace it if possible. Spiderone 06:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   It does address major aspects when it comes to tournaments played and scores, but for instance, it barely mentions the Andy Murray/Del Potro incident in Rome 2008 (and it is not cited, btw). It doesn't mention the fact that he even considered retiring due to injuries in early 2008, and how his current coach changed his carrer. He also won the pretigious Orange Bowl as a junior. Just a few points to consider.

   I couldn't find a source to say he considered retirement Spiderone 18:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

   Well, he was very discouraged by his injuries at that time. While I couldn't find a source in English either, I added something about the problems he had regarding injuries - among other additions. Nat91 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   Too many unnecessary scores. Not every match score is relevant. Also, I believe the article could be expanded with quotes from the player. So, he won his first tournament - what did he feel?; he just won the US Open - what did he say?, what did others (former players, tennis writers) say?. Otherwise, the article seems to be a recolection of scores that can easily be found on the ATP site.

   This is difficult. He didn't receive much attention from the English-speaking media until 2008 so all quotes would have to be recent ones. Spiderone 20:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

   It's not really that difficult. I added the ones I considered most important for now (winning his first tournaments, the USO, his coach's influence). Although I admit I knew where to find most things since I'm a tennis fan myself! :) Nat91 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Seems stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm going to put it on hold for a week.--Nat91 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

   Okay, after Spiderone's work and my final contributions, I believe the article is suitable for GA. Good work! Nat91 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)