Talk:Alex Lawless/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This article needs a major revamping and cleanup before being nominated for GA status again. Please before nominating again, get the article peer reviewed. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 04:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Break his club career section down into his different clubs. Unfortunately there isn't enough content at this time either. The article doesn't flow and facts are stated almost like a list. It is full of sentences are short and filled with and's and comma's. The quotations in the article aren't necessary and could be replaced to simply let the sentence flow.

   Granted, it needs expanding, and I was hoping to do this before the eventual GA review. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Overuse of BBC Sport as a reference. Try and use more newspaper or online articles rather than reports.

   Where does it say in the WP:Good article criteria about overusing a particular source? The BBC happens to be a very useful resource, hence it being used often. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A lot of work needed. Information about national team selection. Perhaps why? Go into depth? More below.

   I imagine the reason for him being selected in the national team is because the manager thought he was one of the best players to utilise, that pretty much goes without saying. But some more information regarding his time with the team would be useful. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

   Very low resolution photo used in article and is not a very good size.

   I can't really do anything about that, there's no hemorrhage of photos to choose from for lower-league footballers. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A lot of work needed to bring this up to GA status. Please use peer review in future. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 04:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Article problems

• Content - Nowhere near enough of it, I'd be reluctant to put this article up to C-class status. Their simply isn't enough detailed information. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk
• Lead - Needs to be looked at. Put his birthplace in there as well, not under a section known as "club career". JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk
  • Could you explain why it needs looking at? And per WP:LEAD, information shouldn't be mentioned only in the lead.
• Club career - No information about youth career at Cardiff or Fulham. Perhaps try and find youth or scouting reports or articles on the player at an earlier date. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk
  • Will look out for such details, although it will be difficult to come by. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• International career - This is poorly written. It has four facts, in four sentences crammed into a small paragraph. This is why it is important to use more sources than BBC. Same applies for club career. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk
  • If anything crops up that isn't from the BBC, then I'll add it. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Personal life - Is there enough information about this to warrant a section? JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk
• Career stats - Fine. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk
• References - Over-reliance on BBC. Otherwise fine. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk