Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Maria Sharapova/1

Maria Sharapova

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

Result: Delist. GA problems raised below remain. Geometry guy 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite a way below GA class in my opinion. Some of the major problems:

A large array of citations missing, only a few have been tagged, but a lot of work needs to go into solving it.
The prose is dire. It's basically a rewrite of her WTA page. This is accentuated by the "season summary" which appears at the top of each year section, exactly the same as the WTA page. The format is basically a wikilinked copy-and-modify-a-bit-and-paste. Let's remember we're trying to write engaging prose, not merely summarise every quarter, semi and final match she's ever appeared in. That way lies dull, uninspiring prose.
There's a "quotations" section which is simply trivia. And we discourage trivia sections, so this should be discourage as well. If the quotation is signficant (e.g. the "cow on ice") then include it in the prose. Otherwise this section should be removed.
There's a "notable matches" section which has some vague criteria (just added by User:Tennis expert) such as "trailing badly ", "heavily favored ", " big lead", "long or very close, or both.". It also includes "(5) finals" but then doesn't include all the finals she has been in. The inherent WP:POV in this section means it should be removed or "big", "badly", "close" etc should be defined.
References are in bad shape. Between about [30] and [65] we have no accessdates, publisher information, nothing other than a link.

I advocate the delisting of this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The misrepresentations you (The Rambling Man) have posted here are truly breathtaking! Let's take a brief look at the most important one. If you look at the Maria Sharapova information on the website of the Women's Tennis Association, you will see very quickly that this article has nothing to do with that website. It's astonishing that you would claim that anything in the article is "exactly the same as the WTA page." Did you even bother to read the WTA website before posting your false claim here? Tennis expert (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, does this article still meet the good article criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist This article has a ton of work that needs to be done on the references and referencing before this article can remain at GA status. First of all, as mentioned before, all web references need accessdates and publishers. Current refs 14 (RolandGarros), 15 (Wimbledon 2008 Statistics) and 59 (RollandGarros) deadlink. What makes these refs reliable (and note, these are only from the refs that have publishers listed):
- #6 (About.com) (About.com is almost never reliable)
- #87 (Jurgita)
- #87 (ThinkExist)

Links such as the one in ref #25 (Edmondson book) should be linked to the title of the book, rather than being a bare link. I also agree with the Rambling Man that the items in the quotes section should either be incorporated in the article or removed and transcluded to WikiQuote. There are a number of fact tags in the article that need to be resolved. There are some direct quotes that do not have references, which is a big no-no (see the end of the first paragraph of the Endorsements section for an example). Also, is it really necessary to have a "summary of the year" and a "year in-depth" section for each year, even when the year-in depth section isn't that long (for example, 2003)? As a final comment, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, and therefore usually doesn't need references unless they're supporting a direct quote. Dana boomer (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The article needs substantial improvement before it meets GA standards. The prose is lacking, a problem common in all too many WP sports articles. The layout style is unencyclopedic with far too much emphasis on "and then..." chronology. Stubby paragraphs and sections have a half-baked feel to them. Sections such as "Awards" are nothing more than a bullet-point list. The quotes section has trivializes the article. Plus, there's formatting issues with several citations, as noted above by Dana Boomer.

Some of the of the {{fact}} tags are overkill. As an example, does the statement Sharapova developed rapidly at the academy and began playing junior tournaments really require a citation? My interpretation of GA criterion 2b suggests that referencing isn't required in this case as it's not a direct quotation, a statistic, counter-intuitive, contentious, etc.

I hope that the article's editors don't give up on discussion. Step back, take a rest from the article if needed, and come back recharged and ready to iron out differences. Majoreditor (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I feel that the edit-warring is sufficient grounds, even if everything else were perfect. Which it isn't. There's some astonishingly disruptive WP:OWN editing evident on this article. Reinstatement of MOS-breaching date linking is also not helping and is inviting a listing at WP:LAME. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]