Talk:Wayne Rooney/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) 13:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article is constructed reasonably well, but the section about his football career is predominantly, "He scored some goals, then he scored a few more goals, then he got sent off, then he came back and scored some more goals." Surely there is more to Rooney's football career than just the goals. Otherwise we could probably reduce the section on his career fairly considerably.

Can you please tell me how I can improve the article?RRD13 (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having given the article a fresh re-read, I think it's just the section on his Manchester United career that needs sorting out, particularly anything that has happened since 2009. Why does the section start with a single subsection for his debut season, then two sections for the following four seasons, then back to the one-season-one-section format since 2009? Clearly there is too much detail given to recent events, particularly the 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons, in violation of WP:RECENT. – Pee Jay 14:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 2009-10 season, all things mentioned are important. I find nothing to remove from the section.And for that two years in one section- because there is nothing more to write about, so two years are clubbed in one section. However in 2011-12 section, there are too many descriptions how Rooney scored a particular goal, (and many other needless stuff) which I have edited. RRD13 (talk)

I can probably agree that 2009–10 is of sufficient detail, given it was Rooney's most successful season in a United shirt on a personal level, but the article flip-flops dramatically from over-detailed to under-detailed. For example, the section on the 2007-2009 years is grossly under-detailed. Rooney's contribution in both 2007-08 and 2008-09 deserves more than two paragraphs. – Pee Jay 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some details.Hope it works!RRD13 (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"By the end of April, a combination of two goals in an 8–3 aggregate quarter-final win over Roma and two more in a 3–2 semi-final first leg victory over Milan.[79]" This doesn't make sense and needs to be fixed. C 679 09:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Done[reply]

Still doesn't make sense and the first part needs a reference. Do you mean "In April"? C 679 19:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Done It means at the end of april. RRD13 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it still doesn't make sense. It's effectively a sentence fragment. – Pee Jay 18:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Despite my comments above, the whole article is well sourced and contains no OR that I could see.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
As noted above, I don't see how we can call this article focused when all it does is flit from one flurry of goals to the next.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The whole article is relatively balanced, as it does not ignore the many controversies surrounding Rooney's life and career. None of the statements in the article give an unbalanced reflection of the facts.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
As Rooney's career is ongoing, and considering that he plays for Manchester United, it is inevitable that the article will come in for its fair share of vandalism. However, once the vandalism is subtracted, the article's stability is affected only by the regular updates that come from Rooney playing further matches.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I would prefer it if the image captions were not all simply describing the photo, and instead provided a summary of the information in the article, but they will do.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'm not willing to pass this article just yet. If the prose could be tightened as noted above, that would be brilliant. I'm not looking for much as GA is only supposed to reward "decent" articles, not necessarily the best, but some effort would be nice. – Pee Jay 13:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made my determination. After a week, there has been no significant improvement in the quality of this article, so I've decided to fail it for now. It's definitely worthy of B-class, but it's not a GA just yet. – Pee Jay 18:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]