Talk:Okęcie Airport incident/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice piece of work generally. It is well written and describes an interesting controversy comprehensively and well. One or two issues, and ironically the description of the incident is the only part not entirely clear for the reader.

"and was thus in bad condition in the morning." Perhaps specify here how he was in a bad condition.
Very minor point, is it worth specifying why Terlecki was such a key player. However, I appreciate it is not that sort of sports article, so I'm not too bothered by this.
"On the night before the team's departure...": To where? The article is a little vague on where they were going.
Do we know why he was meeting the journalist?
"the other players decided to take him with them": Was it ever really an option not to take him?
"Młynarczyk could not carry his own bags owing to his drunkenness, so Włodzimierz Smolarek, the goalkeeper's room-mate, took them down for him.": As written, it seems a little trivial, but it is important in establishing his state and also for the incident at the airport. What about: "Mlynarczyk was too drunk to even carry his own bags, which his team-mate Włodzimierz Smolarek had to carry.
It is a little confusing as to who had what "jurisdiction". Who had more authority, Kulesza or Blaut? Who made the decision to drop and then take him? Blaut seems to do most of the arguing and was the one who decided not to take him but when Młynarczyk arrived at the airport, Kulesza decided to take him, although he doesn't seem to have had much to do with it before that.
"Meanwhile, in Rome, Terlecki disobeyed orders by organising a meeting with the Pope for the players" Meanwhile implies that Terlecki was in Rome while all this was going on, and this is the first mention of Rome. Presumably, while the scandal erupted in the media, the players travelled and then he arranged the audience?
"Terlecki, Młynarczyk, Boniek and Żmuda were consequently sent home." For the meeting with the pope (which is how it reads), or for the airport incident. Who made the decision to send them home? The FA or the management or someone else?
"Despite being without four of their first-team players, Poland beat Malta 2–0..." Chronology again confusing. It would be worth pointing out that (presumably) Poland had finished the training camp, played the Italian league team and gone on to Malta.
"All of the players disavowed the letter, save only Terlecki, Młynarczyk, Boniek and Żmuda." Maybe better to say "Only Terlecki, Młynarczyk, Boniek and Żmuda supported/endorsed the letter"
Any suggestion why the players had their punishment cut short?
No dablinks, but link in 11 is dead and checklinks showing a couple of problems (though not sure they are really problems).
Images seem OK, but are the images from 1980 definitely published before 1994?
"All of the players disavowed the letter, save only Terlecki, Młynarczyk, Boniek and Żmuda" The names are not given in the ref.
Spot-check of English sources revealed no problems, but can't vouch for Polish ones.

I'll place this on hold, but don't see too many problems with passing it soon. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all sorted. First thing, thanks for reviewing this throughly. I have followed the instructions, with just the following note:

"Any suggestion why the players had their punishment cut short?" – I thought it was explained below, by the new manager's preference for the banned goalkeeper.

Is there anything more? :) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good, the only remaining problem is that it still doesn't clarify whether the players were sent home because of the pope or the incident. That part is a little vague. Rest is fine and I'll pass once this is done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorted. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 08:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passing now. Good stuff. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers shamwari. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 08:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]