Talk:Marcus Rashford/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 10:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ArsenalGhanaPartey. I will be reviewing this article over the coming days. Please let me know for any problems. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section-wise Assessment

Lead Section

Good; very well-written

Early Life

Fine; backed by sources

Club Career

 Early Career

'Fletcher Ross Rangers academy development officer Dave Horrocks recalls that Rashford was on a "different level" to (replace with 'as compared') other boys, playing a major role as the team won a tournament with 15 scouts from various clubs watching'
'Former United youth coach Paul McGuinness quickly saw Rashford's potential due to his athleticism both on and off the ball....' What does 'on and off the ball' mean? Replace 'ball' with field.
What does 'cage football' mean? Make it clear.

 2015–16 season: Debut

Fine

 2016–17 season: European success

Why have words like 'tremendous fashion' been used? Clear violation of WP: PEACOCK
'As a player however he failed to score until 7 January 2017 when he scored a four-minute brace in the FA Cup against Jaap Stam's Reading, which ended 4–0' Where did he not score? Add commas here.

2018–19 season

Again, words like 'devastating' player are not neutral
These sections contain too much content, much of which will appeal only to a particular audience
No need to describe every action of his, like his penalty as 'fearless'. Just mentioning it is enough here on Wikipedia.

Too Many 'Flattery' Words

I've stopped the review mid-way and went though the whole article. I found many instances of such usage, which goes against the neutral point of view. Improving this will take some time. Hence, I recommend that these issues be resolved. Once done, the article can be re-nominated. Kpddg ^(talk) 13:49, 6 January 2022 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Fail:
· · ·

This article fails