Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alberto Contador/1

Alberto Contador

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted per concerns listed below Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was listed as GA back in 2009. The content since then is not horrible, but sub-par, and leaves out important information. Also, references should be looked into. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caution: Since I messed up and wrongly opened an individual assessement first, the "Most recent review" link leads to the wrong review! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

Delist per Zwerg Nase and a few other reasons:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Link "convulsions"

"risky surgery" seems slightly non-neutral, maybe "high-risk surgery" would be better

2013 section needs some expansion

Numbers less than ten are represented with words
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
three dead links

I'd recommend that you elaborate upon the Bare url references.

"2010 section" requires more adequate referencing
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Note birth date in body.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomandjerry211 (alt), since The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it., part of the goal of a community reassessment is to show what needs to be improved for the article to attain or retain GA status. It would help a great deal if you could elaborate on what issues you found—for example, what major details you felt were lacking, and at least a couple of places where you found problematic prose, very much like you would do in a normal GAN review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset:Elaborated upon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: two sections (2013 and 2015 seasons) have "expansion needed" templates, there are a number of "citation needed" requests, and still a bunch of bare URLs to flesh out. Further, there are several prose and grammatical issues in the 2015 season's Giro d'Italia paragraph that need fixing. Finally, as the article is about 45K prose characters, the WP:LEAD guideline, part of the GA criteria, says the lead should be three or four paragraphs, not only two. (It also has quite a few inline source citations; these facts should all be in the body of the article and sourced there, so unless a quote or a controversial fact, they shouldn't need to also be cited in the lead.) As it stands, it simply is not a Good Article, and requires significant work to get there. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I have made a copyedit of the 2015 Giro section, which should now be relatively up to speed, but the remaining points still make this a delist in my opinion. For this to be kept, someone with more time on their hands than me need to go over this thoroughly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only now realize that it has already be delisted... Well, some work can never hurt. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]