Talk:Michael Carrick/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: three found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Style: a very large number of sentences start with "Carrick". Please rephrase.

   Could do with a thorough copy-edit. Examples: " Carrick was apart of the youth side"; " According to his manager at the time, Harry Redknapp, Carrick's difficulty at the start of his career was mainly physical and his development was hampered to the extent that he lost almost two seasons to injuries having problems with his knees because of growing too quickly."; "Rather than join the exodus that accounted for team-mates Joe Cole, Frédéric Kanouté and Jermain Defoe"; "Carrick lasted just 63 minutes of the game, a 2–1 defeat at former club West Ham United, as Arsenal beat them to fourth and a place in the Champions League."; "On 10 June 2006, Tottenham confirmed they rejected a £10 million bid from Manchester United for Carrick."; "The fee was confirmed as £14 million by United's chief executive David Gill, potentially rising to £18.6 million, which would potentially make Carrick the sixth most expensive player acquired by Manchester United at the time."; "Carrick described this defeat as worst night of his career, claiming "It came and went and it was too late. It was gone." There are many other examples of poor prose and grammar.

   The lead does not fully summarise the article, please see WP:LEAD

   I see some work has been done, I still had to make a considerable number of copy-edits to correct basic grammatical errors. I judge the prose to now be "reasonably well written". PLease make sure that you get someone to copy-edit before submitting for nomination in future.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   What makes http://www.azplayers.com/, http://www.buzzle.com/articles/137521.html, http://www.manchester-united-fans-site.com/michael-carrick.html, http://www.swindon.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=155801, http://www.kumb.com/award.php?id=11, http://www.footballsquads.co.uk/eng/2004-2005/flcham/westham.htm, http://www.kickette.com/pitter-patter-michael-and-lisa-carrick-welcome-baby-jacey/, http://www.stretfordend.co.uk/playermenu/carrick.html, http://www.national-football-teams.com/ reliable sources? Please show how they meet the criteria.

This has not been addressed. Not done

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

   Image checks out, captioned and tagged.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

   Some work has been done, but not enough to make this a good article.