GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Kpddg ( talk · contribs) 14:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to review this article. Kindly give me some time. Your views are welcome. Thank You.
Kpddg (
talk)
14:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I have been reviewing this article from sometime, before writing here. It looks fine. The language is good, reliable sources have been added, and images are good. I think it should be a good article. Kpddg ( talk) 14:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@@ REDMAN 2019: I reviewed this article. It has passed on to 'good level'. Thank you for your contributions. Kpddg ( talk) 14:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The nomination was approved prematurely by a novice reviewer after noting issues with the article; the review has been reopened and a second opinion in the form of a full review by an experienced GA reviewer is being taken up. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to provide a second opinion on this nomination. I am prepared to provide feedback right away so that we don't create further delays for the nominator. I don't think I've ever answered a second opinion request where the article was already promoted; let me know if anything needs to be done administratively. Otherwise, I can begin providing feedback right away.
Larry Hockett (
Talk)
08:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to the nominator for the hard work that has gone into this entry. First, a few easy things. The article is stable, and a quick read tells me that the overall tone is neutral. There are many images, but they are relevant and have appropriate licensing information and suitable captions.
Regarding copyright, Earwig's tool turns up little of concern, but there are a couple of instances of close paraphrasing from this CNN source:
Will now look at the article section by section, looking mostly at the prose (not doing a deep dive into the references yet).
I'll pause there, but we're well on the way. I anticipate that I'll provide the rest of the feedback by Sunday. Thanks again for the work! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 01:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The description of the goal is quoted from the article which I have archived. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 12:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that's all I have for now. Once we address this, I'll do some spot checks of the references (though I ended up checking a few already) and make a quick copyediting run through the article (I noticed a small number of issues like punctuation that I can fix myself). Larry Hockett ( Talk) 01:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
REDMAN 2019 - The "stunning" issue wasn't addressed, but I took care of it as I was copyediting by removing the word stunning. I hope you don't mind. The idea of the passage seemed to be more about the events after the goal than the goal itself. There are a few sourcing issues to resolve. In the Style of Play section, there is an unsourced statement that starts with "He is widely considered ..." There are also references to FutsalFeed and Lifebogger (misspelled Lifeblogger in the reference list), but these don't strike me as sources with a reputation for reliability. FutsalFeed solicits news stories and promotional information from the public, for example. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 08:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Thanks for hanging in there during a prolonged review process! | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Good work during the review process to ensure the verifiability of the entry. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Good work addressing a couple of instances of close paraphrasing. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The neutrality/tone was improved in a few places during the review process. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Thanks again for the work on this entry! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 14:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Kpddg ( talk · contribs) 14:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to review this article. Kindly give me some time. Your views are welcome. Thank You.
Kpddg (
talk)
14:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I have been reviewing this article from sometime, before writing here. It looks fine. The language is good, reliable sources have been added, and images are good. I think it should be a good article. Kpddg ( talk) 14:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@@ REDMAN 2019: I reviewed this article. It has passed on to 'good level'. Thank you for your contributions. Kpddg ( talk) 14:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The nomination was approved prematurely by a novice reviewer after noting issues with the article; the review has been reopened and a second opinion in the form of a full review by an experienced GA reviewer is being taken up. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to provide a second opinion on this nomination. I am prepared to provide feedback right away so that we don't create further delays for the nominator. I don't think I've ever answered a second opinion request where the article was already promoted; let me know if anything needs to be done administratively. Otherwise, I can begin providing feedback right away.
Larry Hockett (
Talk)
08:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to the nominator for the hard work that has gone into this entry. First, a few easy things. The article is stable, and a quick read tells me that the overall tone is neutral. There are many images, but they are relevant and have appropriate licensing information and suitable captions.
Regarding copyright, Earwig's tool turns up little of concern, but there are a couple of instances of close paraphrasing from this CNN source:
Will now look at the article section by section, looking mostly at the prose (not doing a deep dive into the references yet).
I'll pause there, but we're well on the way. I anticipate that I'll provide the rest of the feedback by Sunday. Thanks again for the work! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 01:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The description of the goal is quoted from the article which I have archived. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 12:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that's all I have for now. Once we address this, I'll do some spot checks of the references (though I ended up checking a few already) and make a quick copyediting run through the article (I noticed a small number of issues like punctuation that I can fix myself). Larry Hockett ( Talk) 01:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
REDMAN 2019 - The "stunning" issue wasn't addressed, but I took care of it as I was copyediting by removing the word stunning. I hope you don't mind. The idea of the passage seemed to be more about the events after the goal than the goal itself. There are a few sourcing issues to resolve. In the Style of Play section, there is an unsourced statement that starts with "He is widely considered ..." There are also references to FutsalFeed and Lifebogger (misspelled Lifeblogger in the reference list), but these don't strike me as sources with a reputation for reliability. FutsalFeed solicits news stories and promotional information from the public, for example. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 08:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Thanks for hanging in there during a prolonged review process! | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Good work during the review process to ensure the verifiability of the entry. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Good work addressing a couple of instances of close paraphrasing. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The neutrality/tone was improved in a few places during the review process. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Thanks again for the work on this entry! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 14:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)