Talk:Paris Saint-Germain F.C.

Squad

So the pre-season have ended and the new season have started. We are yet to know how the 'first team' would 'look like' from the official website. There is no confirmation about 'elite squad' like last season either. In this scenario, what do you all think 'other players under contract' should look like? This is my personal opinion with the players currently listed in the page.

Gharbi - U19 career is over and looks like to be part of first team. Also featured in league matchday squad. Should stay in current squad section.

Kurzawa - loan return, featured in matchday squad. Stay in current squad section.

Draxler, Dagba, Michut, Nagera, Wijnaldum - back from loan, yet to be named in matchday squad in official match. Dont think any of them in coach's plans. Should be in other players under contract section

Nhaga, E.Mbappe, Lemina - they were part of preseason tour. Unless they are going to be part of elite squad, they should be only named in the reserves & youth academy page. Not in main page. Yes, they are under pro contract but also eligible to play for U19 team, where they'll mainly play

Mouquet, Randriamany, Fernandez, Bodiang, Muntu Wa Mungu - U19 career is over and wont be part of first team dynamics. Proper 'other players under contracts' players.

Tagging usual contributors User:Paul Vaurie and User:DroopyDoggy to know opinions.

Kokoeist (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kokoeist: I agree with all of what you stated up here. For their inclusion in the most recent squad, Zaïre-Emery, Gharbi, and Kurzawa should be in the current squad section for me, along with Navas. About Draxler, although he was on the Japan tour and was assigned a number, he was not on the team last year and didn't make the recent squad, and should be in the "other players" section. Mouquet is now a senior player just like Gharbi, and was also included in the Japan tour, but he has never appeared in a squad, so I would keep him in the "other players" section. Then we have the cases of Nhaga, Housni, Lemina, and E. Mbappé. All of them participated in the Japan tour, and received squad numbers. However, apparently the first three were sent back to train with the U19s upon their return in France, while E. Mbappé stayed in first-team training. Housni is the only one to have made an official first-team appearance. I think that sending them back to the U19s based on the media report creates updating problems, and it raises a question about what Housni's appearances last season mean now. My personal opinion is that until the "elite group" and/or the first-team squad drops, we should just keep Nhaga, Housni, E. Mbappé, and Lemina in the "other players under contract" section. It would complicate our life if we didn't, because then we have to follow media reports and make rules and exceptions that don't make sense. Since they're already here, let's just keep them here for now until we get PSG's official squad. Lastly, Randriamamy, Bodiang, Dagba, Fernandez-Veliz, Muntu Wa Mungu, Michut, Wijnaldum, and Nagera are all first-team players not included in the Japan tour or the recent squad this season, and should thus be in the other players section.
Essentially, my conclusion is that right now, nothing needs to be changed. We should wait for the official squad to drop to make according changes. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Short Verison: While You Guys Are Right. PSG Should Be Scared for the Future.

Long Version: For The Most Part. You Guys Are Correct. But PSG Should be Scared About the Future. Messi Left for the U.S.A. Neymar was Sold To Saudi Arabia. They are Soon Going to Lose Mbappe in July 2024. Not to Mention that they had to Cut Players and Management for Said Players and More. Over 11 Players were put on transfer List! If we Can Learn Anything From This. It's that you Have to Start Small. And Grow from that. Teams like Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Inter Milan. And Barcelona Start like That. Recently We Saw Sevilla Win The Euorpa League and Put up A Good Fight Against Manchester City In the Super Cup. You Need to Start Small and Grow The Foundation from there or else You'll Crumble. The Problem is that PSG Never Got to Start Like That Because At the Start They Overspent on Players and Almost Went Bankrupt. With The QSI Buying Them Being Their One Saving Grace. And After. They Kept Spending On Big Name Players. And it All Came Crashing Down After 2021. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Dangling modifier/Non-parallel comparison

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

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.

---

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

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General comments

• 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

This is a large article with 212 citations, so I will be spotchecking a random 10% selection. Citation numbers refer to this version.

• 44 N The words "crowning glory" and "legend" are not supported by the source.
• 106 link should be marked as dead; otherwise good
• 182 N the source does not support "OM was bought by Bernard Tapie"
• 45 N neither this source or 46 support "the youngest club in history to win a European title at 26 years of existence"
• 2 N should be marked as dead; sentence closely paraphrases the source, and should be paraphrased.
• 117 N 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 N 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 N This source is, judging from its homepage, a student assignment, and is thus unreliable.
• 207 good
• 110 good
• 165 N 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 N "PSG won the Coupe de France" is not supported by the citation
• 175 good
• 205 good
• 26 N I don't think www.paris-canalhistorique.com is a reliable source—it seems more like a blog to me.
• 31 N Same for www.psg70.free.fr/
• 88 N "a tie amplified by the uncertainty surrounding Kylian Mbappé's future" is editorializing; the source does not say such a thing
• 25 N 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)

The discussion above 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.