Talk:Paris Saint-Germain F.C.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paris Saint-Germain F.C. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Paris Saint-Germain F.C. was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
Dangling modifier/Non-parallel comparison
[edit]Considered the club's golden era, the Parisians won nine trophies and reached five consecutive European semi-finals during the. . .
This sentence starts out describing an era, but immediately following the comma, where the specified era should be, there is instead "the Parisians." This is a classic dangling modifier grammatical error. The sentence should instead read:
In what was considered the club's golden era, the Parisians won. . . 2600:1700:5B2C:A090:8C2C:5BAD:F790:E967 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Paris Saint-Germain F.C./GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Paul Vaurie (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this review. It will be used for the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. Comments to come soon. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
General comments
[edit]- Nice article on such a big club! Per the authorship statistics, you are not the main author of this article. Has DroopyDoggy given their consent for the nomination?
- I would suggest standardising how the club is referred to in prose. The nicknames "The Parisians" and "the Red and Blues" need to be replaced where they occur in the body. As "Paris" and "Paris SG" are not used in the body, I would suggest removing them from the first sentence as far-less-common variants.
- The subsections "Out on loan" and "Other players under contract" need sources.
- As I do not see any WP:QUICKFAIL-criteria fulfilled, I will start with the source spotcheck tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Spotcheck
[edit]This is a large article with 212 citations, so I will be spotchecking a random 10% selection. Citation numbers refer to this version.
- 44 The words "crowning glory" and "legend" are not supported by the source.
- 106 link should be marked as dead; otherwise good
- 182 the source does not support "OM was bought by Bernard Tapie"
- 45 neither this source or 46 support "the youngest club in history to win a European title at 26 years of existence"
- 2 should be marked as dead; sentence closely paraphrases the source, and should be paraphrased.
- 117 Again there is WP:CLOP: "The connection between Paris Saint-Germain and the city's fashion houses is a longstanding one." is a direct copy of the source
- 61 should be marked as dead, alongside citation 60. Most of the preceding sentences are not supported by these citations, such as: "The club secured a maiden domestic treble (Ligue 1, Coupe de la Ligue and Trophée des Champions) in the 2013–14 season", "unprecedented", and "winning the latter with a record-breaking 96 points, becoming the only first French men's team to achieve that feat".
- 18 This source is, judging from its homepage, a student assignment, and is thus unreliable.
- 207 good
- 110 good
- 165 this appears to be a fan website and thus not a reliable source
- 146 good, but 2023 doesn't need to be mentioned once, let alone twice, given the year is clear from the previous sentence
- 81 "PSG won the Coupe de France" is not supported by the citation
- 175 good
- 205 good
- 26 I don't think www.paris-canalhistorique.com is a reliable source—it seems more like a blog to me.
- 31 Same for www.psg70.free.fr/
- 88 "a tie amplified by the uncertainty surrounding Kylian Mbappé's future" is editorializing; the source does not say such a thing
- 25 parisunited.fr appears to be a fan-published source, so not reliable
- 79 good
There are thus issues with 13 out of 20 citations spotchecked—a huge proportion, and a look at the "References" section reveals significant reliance on fan-published websites. This is not acceptable at GA, and the article will likely need a large rewrite to achieve the required quality of reliability and source-text integrity. I will put this nomination on hold until 3 April to see if the nominator, who has waited a long time for a review, feels that this judgement is unfair. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: The general analysis of the article and of the spotchecked sources seem to be accurate and fair to me. I can definetely fix everything you listed above in the next week, but fixing 65% of 212 citations is going to take more time than that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly, per the GA instructions, and considering much of the current article (prose and citations) will either be rewritten or replaced, I will have to fail this nomination then. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- OK. Would you be willing to re-open it (via direct request to you specifically) if all citation issues are dealt with in the near-ish future? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I can do that. If you rewrite and renominate, let me know on my talk page, and I'll try to review ASAP. Is that alright? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- That works! Just FYI, I might get there this summer if I get to it at all. I nominated this article a while ago while I had more time, and these days I'm shorter on time. So, we'll see in a bit. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I can do that. If you rewrite and renominate, let me know on my talk page, and I'll try to review ASAP. Is that alright? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- OK. Would you be willing to re-open it (via direct request to you specifically) if all citation issues are dealt with in the near-ish future? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly, per the GA instructions, and considering much of the current article (prose and citations) will either be rewritten or replaced, I will have to fail this nomination then. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Everyday life
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Everyday life
- B-Class vital articles in Everyday life
- B-Class France articles
- High-importance France articles
- Paris task force articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- B-Class football articles
- Mid-importance football articles
- B-Class football in France articles
- Mid-importance football in France articles
- Football in France task force articles
- WikiProject Football articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report