I've listed this article for peer review because I'm very surprised this article hasn't made GA status yet.
Since the last time it was nominated and reviewed in 2014, the page has improved tremendously. It does really have the potential for GA status. Can you guys list problems here and I'll try to fix them?
It's too long, overly detailed, massively full of RECENTISM, and generally bogged down by being written at the same time the events are taking place leading to the micro-incremental additions that make it read like a list of goals and games scored in. There is almost no actual analysis, rather just being a narrative of facts which might be interesting if someone wanted to know when he scored his 10th goal of the season and a hat trick in a particular year, but is incredibly awkward to read as actual biographical information. Same issue at Lionel Messi's article which vies with this one for being the most comprehensive yet unreadable fact-files seen. It can't be a GA without a massive overhaul to meet 1.a, 3.b. Koncorde (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You asked, I am telling you the article isn't written well enough to be a GA. I have made the exact same argument previously when someone advocated for it to be split. If your first thought when you ask for an opinion about an article to be upgraded to GA is that anyone criticising it is a "hater" then you are going to be bitterly disappointed. Koncorde (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if I didn't see that it was "well written" I wouldn't have put it up for peer review. You're not explaining yourself as to why you think it is "written well enough" to become a GA. Could you at least provide reasons or maybe what needs to be fixed? It's not like the whole article needs to be rewritten, just a few minor errors. Matthewishere0 (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't minor errors. The article is poorly written. It's 90% statistics wrapped in a veneer of wordiness. If you actually broke it down and removed all the "on the X of X against X in the X he scored the X of his X for the X of the X". A lot is not particularly notable but was added at the time it happened. It's unreadable. Koncorde (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Messi's is literally the same lol. Face up to the harsh reality that the article has potential and not on your belief that it is "90% statistics". Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not defending Messi's article, I am telling you Ronaldos article is poor. I am telling you Messi's article isn't much better. That Messi got to GA is up to the people doing the peer review at that time and it does not mean it cannot be improved, or is faultless. However it is better written (largely, it has significant issues) than Ronaldos article.
Let's take a random paragraph for an example;
"In the knockout stage of the Champions League, Ronaldo scored the decisive goal against Lyon, which helped United advance to the quarter-finals 2–1 on aggregate,[84] and, while playing as a striker, scored with a header in the 3–0 aggregate victory over Roma.[85]
That is a single sentence with 3 clauses, and two subclauses. Whoever wrote it thought that (presumably) it would be clear what stage they played Roma at. Well what was it? Quarter final? Because they just played Lyon in the knockout round and advanced. Or semi final, because the next sentence is...
"United advanced to the final against Chelsea in Moscow, where, despite his opening goal being negated by an equaliser and his penalty being saved in the shoot-out,[86] Manchester United emerged victorious.[87]"
Woah, nice segue. No final score - nothing. No date, no basic context, just "blablablaheressomeinfo"[source!]. I mean I don't want every date to be included, but there should be some context when talking about matches for when things are out of context. As it is, none of the information there tells us even what year this was - and this is the year that they won the Champions League. One of the biggest matches of his career at the time and... Nothing? No information on the match itself. No analysis, expectations. The "second striker" concept is forgotten as soon as it's mentioned. So was he still playing there? Why did he end up playing there? What is significant about it?
Tell me why Messi's page is different then. It still lists his statistics saying he "scored X on X of X". I don't understand what your point is. Matthewishere0 (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to defend Messi's page. If your sole argument is "Messi's page is GA so why isn't this?" then you haven't read the Ronaldo article properly and are ignoring the issues with Ronaldos page. Since 2014 the only true editorial oversight in its push for GA was in checking the sources are valid over the last year or so since the last Peer Review a year ago (not 2014). Nobody has spent the time to truly bring the page up to scratch in terms of the quality of writing. I am telling you that it fails a GA because the writing is poor per 1.a and 3.b. I have provided you with a basic overview of a single paragraph alone that is both internally inconsistent, with poor punctuation, sentence structure and no actual thought to make it have a reasonable level of readability. The entire article is filled with the same issues throughout. Koncorde (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Send a link to 1.a and 3.b so I can read it to see if your argument is reasonable. You still seem to be a fan of just redoing the whole page all over again. This will become a GA much quicker than the chances of the article being redone all over again. Also, in the example you provided, "In the knockout stage of the Champions League, Ronaldo scored the decisive goal against Lyon, which helped United advance to the quarter-finals 2–1 on aggregate, and, while playing as a striker, scored with a header in the 3–0 aggregate victory over Roma.",when it says "knockout round" it means round of 16. The match against Roma was in the quarter finals. This sentence can easily be written as "In the Round of 16 of the Champions League, Ronaldo scored a goal against Lyon, which helped United advance to the quarter-finals 2-1 on aggregate. In the semi-finals, while playing as a striker, he scored a header in the 3-0 aggregate victory over Roma." not requiring the whole article to be redone as you claim is inevitable.
Now lets go to the next example you provided: "United advanced to the final against Chelsea in Moscow, where, despite his opening goal being negated by an equaliser and his penalty being saved in the shoot-out,[86] Manchester United emerged victorious". No score? You can just google that final and then add the shootout and the game score into the sentence. You don't have to make such a big deal out of it, you could've simply said something like: "this sentence is missing a date and a final score." Matthewishere0 (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"when it says "knockout round" it means round of 16. The match against Roma was in the quarter finals." I rest my case why this is not a GA. It doesn't matter if it is an easy job to fix, it is not a GA because of the numerous instances of low quality writing that requires significant editorial oversight and refactoring. I am concerned you don't know the standards for GA when nominating a Peer Review. Koncorde (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that's exactly why I put it up for peer review. Look at the previous peer review; they listed things that needed to be fixed, and then strikes them off. That's what I want you to do, and that's how the process is to making it a GA. Complaining about it needed to be completely written isn't going to get it anywhere. Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I am telling you that the entire article needs to be rewritten. There are plenty of citations (which the previous peer review fixed) but the body text is abominable. I can cut and paste every single sentence, and then you can tell me how each one could be done better, but that seems like a waste of time when you could just actually start improving the article by reading it yourself. You professed "It does really have the potential for GA status". I am telling you that it does not have GA potential I'm it's current state for a laundry list of reasons. Get the article into a passable state and then start a peer review. Koncorde (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Koncorde. PR is indeed supposed to be a way of getting feedback on an article, but before sending it to PR, an editor should probably do their own self-assessment of the article. I feel like User:Matthewishere0 hasn't done that. – PeeJay19:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PeeJay2K3: I actually have read through the article and reviewed the sources, and almost all of the 500 or so sources it has are well formatted. I did find some sentences that were repetitive, such as "On x of the X Ronaldo did X", and I have also been a contributor by fixing his incorrect height of 1.89 m to 1.87 m and changing some sources and grammar fixes over many years. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koncorde: So it seems that no progress is going to be made here. My goal was to get something like the previous peer review, (it would be helpful if you could read it to understand what I mean), where users listed problems in the article and them striked them out as they were fixed. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Tom (LT)
Hi Matthewishere0, my opinion falls somewhere between yours and Koncordes. If you are requesting feedback you have to be prepared for both some negative feedback, even if you don't agree with it, and need to understand feedback won't always be in the way that you want. Unfortunately that is just the nature of how feedback works. The plus side is you've had feedback from a few editors in a timely way, I can assure you that doesn't always happen!!
I personally think that something could be said for a split to Playing history of Christiano Ronaldo as it is covered in great detail. I suggest post at WikiProject Football to get the opinion of third parties or post an WP:RFC if you'd like more opinions rather than duking it out here which is just a venue to provide some ideas and feedback rather than make those sorts of decisions.
I personally think this article has a reasonable chance of passing good article status, and it's clear you agree above. Because I feel you are keen to improve the article, I would first sort out the splitting issue one way or the other (otherwise the article won't be stable for GA), and then nominate. I'm going to close this review as I don't think further useful feedback is going to be provided. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This review has been closed as suitable for a direct nomination. Your request has been reviewed and is considered suitable for direct nomination. No issues have been identified that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Good luck!
