Talk:RB Leipzig/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Koppapa (talk · contribs) 08:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do

Well, just a few comments to get this started. 1. Check for typos (like makranstädt or manager, guess there are more). 2. Expand history section. No words they missed two promotions in the 4th tier. 3. No inclusion criteria for notable players. 4. Expand bare-url links. -Koppapa (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good list. I really think we need to expand history section. I have put great emphasis on to describe how the club emerged and its organization (since this is what interests me the most), but I have not written anything about the sporting development, and here I think we could follow the example of the German article ("Oberliga", "Regionalliga", and so on). Best regards /EriFr (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Koppapa and EriFr: What's the status here? C 679 16:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not much progress made. -Koppapa (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as a very bad sign that the bare URLs still remain in the reference section after two and a half months, since that's such an easy fix. Koppapa, perhaps you should put this on hold for a clear period of time—one week is typical—and if there is not significant progress on the four issues you have mentioned so far, then the nomination should be closed. EriFr, this review has been open much longer than most reviews are held open; please give this nomination your priority if you wish it to proceed. Many thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset:I am sorry for not having given any sign for a long time. I will do the following:

- Fix bare links. I will do this today.

- Expand history section. I will do this during the coming weekend (25-25 October).

I think the review can put on hold. However, I still intend to work with the issues that have been mentioned and I will stick to my plan as mentioned above.

Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EriFr, what remains for you to do after the recent edits? It's important for you to communicate your progress here on a regular basis; it's been three weeks. Koppapa, what else do you believe needs to be done to the article to bring it in line with the GA criteria? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Here is my list of things to do:

Expand section on 2. Bundesliga. A lot of things has happened since the entry to the 2. Bundesliga. I think this needs to be covered in order to meet the third good article criteria relating to broadness. I will begin expanding this section tomorrow evening.
Update section on organization. I believe that a very large share of RB Leipzig GmbH has been sold to Red Bull GmbH and I think this needs to be covered. It is important to explain how the organization works. RB Leipzig is a quite unique and controversial organization in German football. I will begin with this during to coming week.
Add a section on the RB Academy and information on the new training center. This is not urgent, but I will do this during the coming weekend.
Expand section on criticism, with positive criticism. I have come across positive criticism, such as interviewees stating that "RB invests where others have failed". I think this needs to be covered in order to meet the fourth good article criteria relating to neutrality.
Add an inclusion criteria for notable players. I get this in theory, but I have honestly no clue about how this works on Wikipedia. I think this needs to be done in order to meet the second good article criteria.
Check typos, and make sure that the use of certain terms is consistent. Examples: "manager"/"trainer", "club"/"team" and "reserve team"/"second team". I think this needs to be done in order to meet the first good article criteria.
Check overall language. I think this needs to be done in order to meet the first good article criteria. I am not a native English speaker myself, so this is the most difficult task for me, but I have noticed that User:Mr Stephen has made some very good efforts here, hopefully he is willing to continue checking the language.

Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the expansion of the section on 2. Bundesliga, but there are much more to do. I suggest we close this review. It seems that I am the only one working on this article at the moment, and I have spent the last entire weekends working on it (it has honestly been quite a lot of work). I will continue with my list, be sure of that, but I do not think I can do all the work needed in the period required. Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koppapa, at this point it's up to you to close the review, or to respond if you would prefer not to close it for any reason. Thanks. EriFr, we appreciate your continuing work on the article, and can understand why you want to take your time with the many tasks that remain to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then let's close for now. I don't know how to do it, never done it. Probably should not ave been reviewer in the fist palce. I just wanted to make a small comment. The article though has been improved nicely, good work. -Koppapa (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koppapa, I've just taken care of closing the review. Next time, if you want to make a general comment, it's probably best just to comment on the article's talk page; if you open a GA review, you're responsible for finishing said review according to the GA criteria, which is a significant responsibility. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]