Talk:FC Bayern Munich/GA2

GA Review

OK, reviewing in reverse order:

Criteria 6 (Images): PASS. A number of illustrative images present, all seem to have appropriate copyright tags and have captions. A few suggestions, though:

• Image:Bayern Munchen.png (Is this really low res? The resolution could be dropped a bit to reduce reproduceability while remaining perfectly useable here.
• Image:FCB-Gebäude_und_Trainingsgelände.JPG (level? Could do with losing the crane arm)
• Image:Franz Beckenbauer 2006 06 17.jpg (caption could be a bit more detailed; mention that he is a former Munich player, for example, and mention when he became president)
• Image:Allianz_Arena_after_soccer_game.jpg (In focus? Caption could mention why it's glowing red, if it's of interest.)
• Image:FCB-Trainingsplatz.JPG (Consider losing this one, although relevant, to the untrained eye it's just a training field and doesn't really tell us anything about the team.
• Can you find a (free use) pic of the team in action? This would be a useful addition.

More to come... 4u1e (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 5 (Stability): PASS. Some minor instability in the current squad section, but I think that's probably unavoidable at this time of year.

Criteria 4 (Neutrality): minor FAIL PASS
Quite frequent use of non-neutral words to shade the description. This should really be avoided. Non-exhaustive list of examples below, but the article needs review throughout:

• Lead "Although Bayern won its first national championship in 1932, the club was denied access to the Bundesliga at its inception in 1963." This sounds as if the denial was unfair - was it? Judging by the fuller description given in History of Bayern Munich, more neutral wording would be "Although Bayern won its first national championship in 1932, it did not qualify for the first year of the Bundesliga when it was created in 1963."
• 'History' 3rd para "decayed into irrelevance". Evocative, but it would be more neutral to give a more factual description, or to ascribe the view to a named source. Similar for "suffered the ignominy". "Denied membership" appears again here, too, and should be treated as suggested above.
• 'History' 8th para "most successful coach of all time", "agonisingly close", "ignominious" The first needs support from a ref or some stats, the second and third should be deleted.
• 'Stadium' 2nd para "Conclusions about its state can be drawn from the fact that.." Sounds like WP:OR, and certainly sounds like the authorial voice. Suggest that this can be deleted, without affecting the meaning of the para.
• 'Stadium' 3rd para "still highly impressive with its architectural lightnes" Attribute this view to someone, or lose it.
• 'The club and its vicinity'5th para: "their board being stacked with..." has a slightly negative sound (to me, at least). How about "many members of their board being..."

Criteria 3 (Breadth of coverage): Minor FAIL PASS

• The criterion here is broad coverage, not comprehensive. However, almost every other GA level football team article has a section on the team colours and badge or crest. I think a short section on this would be a useful addition here.

Criteria 2 (Accurate and verifiable):FAIL PASS

Inline citations do not appear to meet the minimum requirements laid out in the GA criteria; "at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons"
Just from the lead:

• Ref (1) used does not strictly support claim that the team is the most successful in German football, as it does not compare the team with others. It would also be preferable to use a site in English on en.wiki - I imagine such might well exist.
• Ref (2) does not support the text immediate before it, there is no mention of 140,000 members or of Bayern's relationship to Benfica or Barcelona.

A couple of other examples from later on:

• Quotes that appear without a ref directly after them - I know this is quite an annoying rule, but if you want to progress to FA, you'll need to address it.
• " For the 2007-08 season, Bayern Munich made drastic squad changes to help retool and rebuild. They signed a total of 8 new players (and also, sold/released or loaned out 9 players). Luca Toni from ACF Fiorentina, Miroslav Klose from Werder Bremen and record signing Franck Ribery from Olympique Marseille headlined the signings" Ref 24 is used to support this, but only lists the 2008-09 squad, which is the wrong year, and even if it were the right year, would not support the points being made.

• NEW Colours and crest sections (mostly) not ref'd (I know, I'm just mean :)) 4u1e (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all refs in depth. Please review the article thoughout to be sure that the minimum of references described above is provided.

Criteria 1 (well written): minor FAIL PASS

• Although mostly clear as to what is meant, some examples of non-native English need clearing up. (southgerman as one word, for example)

*Explain what the Bundesliga is at the first appearance. (My apologies, already there 4u1e (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

• Suggest it would be worth splitting the 'History' section into subsections, as has been done for many of the other GA level club articles.
• Use words not numbers for values less than ten (except team scores!).
• Needs a light copyedit for things like missing connecting words, use of commas, and use of tense.
• 'The club and its vicinity' 1st para: "moved between the first division and amateur sports" I don't understand what this means. Can it be clarified?
• 'The club and its vicinity' The intent of the title was unclear to me. The section seems to split into two separate sections: 'Rival teams' and 'Fans'. Suggest the section should be split and these, or some other, titles be used.

OVERALL: FAIL. PASS Most seriously, referencing needs a top to tail sorting out, but tidying up is required for quality of writing, neutrality and breadth of coverage. I'll put this on hold for a week (ending 17 August 2008). Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)