Talk:1994 Ballon d'Or/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   In the lead, "1994 Ballon d'Or" should be bolded, not just "Ballon d'Or".

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Is reference #2 intended to cite the first Bulgarian winner part as well as the third Barcelona player part?

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   There is barely any detail here at all. The content side of this article needs bulking up big-time before GA status should even be considered.

   B. Focused:

   The article stays focused on the topic, but that's about all it does. There is no background info or anything. Major work needed.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is no bias here whatsoever, as everything is based in the facts of the

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Could probably use images of the top three players, but this is a good start.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Although the article passes most of the criteria, I am failing it on the basis that there is jack all in terms of content. A valiant effort, but come back when there's some actual content to assess. Sorry. – PeeJay 16:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)