Talk:Vladimír Šmicer/GA1

GA Review

I'm afraid this is an obvious failure, but I will try and outline some points to help you improve the article.

• The key failure is the lack of references. There isn't one inline citation at all. See WP:CITE for more help on this.
• The lead is far too short per WP:LEAD
• The career section is totally unbalanced, in favour of his career at Liverpool. Seven seasons with Prague and Lens are summed up in just two paragraphs.
• Don't wikilink months and years unless a date is given per WP:DATE
• Scores, seasons and other years use endashes not hyphens or slashes, e.g. 1999–2005 or 2–0. See WP:DASH.
• Don't use contractions in prose, e.g. didn't should read did not.
• The infobox figures need to be aligned.
• Don't use currently per WP:LEAD
• Quotes don't need to be italicised.
• The article seems to be full of opinion, although this isn't helped by the lack of references, e.g.
  • "Šmicer first shot to prominence in 1996"
  • "He played in the Champions League and played a pivotal role in the side's successes in this tournament."
  • "Liverpool won the game 2-0 and Šmicer impressed with his initial input."
  • All these claims needing backing up. I'm sure there are loads more too.
• The article needs a copy-edit for poor prose and grammar. e.g.
  • "Having got to grips with life in the Premiership and regaining full fitness he showed in glimpses just what he is really capable of and played an important role in the Reds treble cup triumph."
  • "His playing return coincided with Liverpools quest for the Champions League and he made subsitute appearences against Bayer Leverkusen, Juventus and Chelsea as Liverpool qualifie for the Champions League final against A.C. Milan."
  • "The match went into Extra-Time and penalties and Šmicer scored the decisive penalty for Liverpool."
  • Again these are just examples.

I would suggest reading the good article criteria, but also getting some assistance on making the changes, perhaps through a peer review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Poor prose, grammatical errors, spelling mistakes and does not follow WP:MOS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Totally unreferenced

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Size of Liverpool section unbalances the article. Other club sections needs expanding

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Lots of WP:POV as per above comments

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

   One image is fine. Can others be found?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Peanut4 (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)