Talk:Nuno Mendes (footballer, born 1978)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 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):

   No problems here, compliant with the key MoS elements, prose is good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The cites to Portuguese language sources need the language=Portuguese parameter to be added. I am rather doubtful about whether foradejoga.net is a WP:RS, it appears to be a forum. Can you show that it is a WP:RS?

   Otherwise sources check out OK, no OR, statements supported.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   good coverage

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV, neutral

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just one issue to be addressed. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you for addressing my concerns, I am happy with the explanation. Listing as GA. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Addressing criteria 2.b

I have received feedback from users at WP:WPF who have more experience with that website than myself. The data they have is taken from other publications and websites. Some content is user supplied and there is a review system where people are thanked for error detection. User supplied data is not automatically processed. It goes through a moderation process, with the site owners having the right to choose what data is published. See here. A regional newspaper based in the Algarve, founded in 1990, which is published across southern Portugal has used foradejogo.net as a source in it's online edition, which suggests that it is viewed as credible. That is the evidence they have found so far.

There are some errors that I've pointed out in the footnotes, but nothing is perfect. Soccerbase is a reliable source and it is accepted on the project that they have errors. I have checked Mendes' statistics on foradejogo against those on Soccerbase, L'Équipe, Ligue de Football Professionnel and Portuguese League for Professional Football and they're identical in most cases. I've also checked the links to league tables that I have replaced with ones on Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation and detected no differences. The same person who found the newspaper article found this page belonging to the Portuguese Football Federation for the current season which matches the statistics on foradejogo for the current campaign. I hope that what I've provided is satisfactory. If not then I will have to edit the last two paragraphs to remove certain details because I'm relying on information provided by foradejogo. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)