Talk:Khazar Lankaran FK/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cloudz679 (talk · contribs) 14:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I will do the review for this article. C679 14:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Not close to meeting the GA criteria at the moment. The prose is basically a regurgitation of the (rather short) list of honours this club has won in its ten year existence, with a couple of manager changes thrown in. Consider the use of the infobox stadium, which is about 3 times as long as the prose connected with the topic. Is that relevant to the club article or is a text summary sufficient?

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Frequent errors in grammar and use of English, resulting in difficulty reading almost every sentence, e.g. 1) "After Mircea Rednic's appointment, who have signed a string of Romanian players and footballers from Liga I, club did not found success in European cups" and 2) "There is often a fierce rivalry between the two strongest teams in the Azerbaijan Premier League, and this is particularly the case in Azerbaijan", etc.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Illogical subsections, e.g. "Rise and fall" and "recent years", which don't make sense to the article. Some lists have unintelligible headings, e.g. in "UEFA club competition record" and "League and domestic cup history".

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Some of the external links do not appear to be relevant websites as set out in the Good Article criteria.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   article lacks inline citations, particularly relating to statistics. Checklinks shows eight broken links.

   C. No original research:

   There is unattributed material in the article.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Headings generally show some promise but the scope is not met due to such an acute lack of information. Some of the most clear omissions is where they played before 2006, how their "strong financial position" impacted on their cause, etc.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   "Khazar is one of the best supported clubs in Azerbaijan, having the highest attendance in the Caucasus region. Supporters of Khazar Lankaran are drawn from all over the Southern Region and beyond, with supporters' clubs all across the world." this is a heavily biased statement, supported by a (dead) primary source. The lead contains misleading information apparently to impart additional notability on this club, e.g. "The club is also a member of the European Club Association, an organization that replaced the previous G-14 which consists of major football clubs in Europe."

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Many issues to work out before this can pass GA. After considering the issues raised here, Wikipedia:Peer review may be a good place to go next. C679 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)