Talk:2000–01 S.L. Benfica season/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Parutakupiu (talk · contribs) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

In my view, this article has what it takes to be considered a Good Article. The only aspect that will require more attention and care in future (and more demanding) reviews is the quality of the prose, which needs substantial improvement. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
Relies too much on a single source (Record), but I understand it gets harder finding varied references for such "old seasons". Good use of source archiving, though.

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
A quite fair description and analysis of the club's poorest season ever.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
If you cannot find an image of the squad, maybe one of the coach(es), or the top scorer.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Parutakupiu I admit that the prose it is not perfect, but I'm not experienced enough to write with the quality that you might expect. I requested to c/e to "polish" it, but the quality of the improvements depends on the familiarity of the copy-editer with the subject. It's not science or math, but knowing a extensive vocabulary about football is important. Also, because "Record" is the only available source, it limits the amount of detail it is put into the article. I chose not to add picture of manager of coach, because they are optional to GAN. If it would be a deal-breaker, I would add them. --Threeohsix (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threeohsix, I know. That's why I passed it on criterium 1a, because the current level is enough for GA status. I actually refrained myself from doing some copyediting because of this and because I can help you on that in future reviews. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]