Talk:Pierre Guillemin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 16:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Will review. Disclaimer: I am a WP:WIKICUP participant, as is the nominator. Wugapodes (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

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

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. The lead is not very accessible to those who don't understand rugby. I would strongly recommend wikilinks and/or an explanation for a number of the terms like "The Rest of France", "awarded selection", and "try" as I'm not sure what any of those mean.

   I have extensively edited the lead to make it more comprehensible. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

2. "Despite losing the game 0–19, the press did not consider it a crushing defeat" You never actually said who won.

   Clarified. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

3. "France, just one drop-goal, albeit "magnificent"." What does this mean? The whole sentence is confusing to be honest.

   Rugby can be confusing to the uninitiated: I've rewritten the sentence. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

4. The article read more like a history of the French National Rugby Team than it does a biography of Pierre Guillemin. Of the 5 paragraphs in the 1908-10 subsection, only 2 even mention Guillemin.

   I'm marking this as resolved because, to reasonable degree, it is. I still feel like the article strays at times, but it is much better. I still recommend a look at the sources to see what more could be said about Guillemin's participation in the games mentioned to see how coverage could continue to be improved.Wugapodes (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

5. "a huge crowd for French rugby" This should be cited if from a source, or removed as original research or puffery.

   Citation added. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

6. "The Chronique de la Jeunesse, however, makes numerous mentions of Guillemin's play around the field." You should include those mentions.

   Copyedit done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

7. The last four "paragraphs" of the "Final Seasons" subsection need to be rewritten. They are not "reasonably well written" per the GA criteria as they are basically a list of appearances without any comment.

   I've removed some superfluous material. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

8. The date formats of the references need to be consistent.

   Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• The early life and death sections are incredibly short. Is there really no more information on the player's early life or military service? If not, can these sections be better integrated so that we don't have two sections with one line of text?

Results

On hold for 7 days with a possible extension if needed. I have a lot of reservations about this article, most notably the lack of information on his early life and military service. But also the lack of focus of the career section and its reading like a history of the French National Team. I think a good deal of work needs to be done, but I think it can be done. Let me know if you have questions or comments. Wugapodes (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I haven't made any progress: I've only just seen this, as there wasn't a message left on my talk page. If you wouldn't mind leaving for an additional 7 days, I'll get on to it and ensure all is covered off. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact, this is clearly untrue, I just hadn't seen it. Nevertheless, if I could have further time, I'd be grateful. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hold Extended 7 days. Wugapodes (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@FunkyCanute: Have you had time to look at this yet? I'll extend the hold a few more days to give you time to respond to the ping, but if I don't hear from you in the next couple of days I'm going to close the review. Wugapodes (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Listed As mentioned above, I do think the sources should be consulted as I'm not sure how comprehensive it is. But of course that's not a GA problem. A well written article no less, and one I found very interesting. Thanks for the contribution and keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)