Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 14:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested in taking on this review. As an initial comment the lead needs reworking to better reflect the article. While it appears to go through a list of awards twice in two separate paragraphs, his player profile, outside life, and personal life appear to be unmentioned. The other immediate issue that stands out is using notes to group citations. Such citations can be grouped within normal reference code. I note at the outset that this is a particularly long article, with 81kB of prose. Due to the specificity of the article and the lack of subarticles, I think that is acceptable for the moment in terms of prose size, however, on a technical level, this article may be exceeding the WP:PEIS, as the Authority control template is not loading for me. Before undertaking a detailed assessment however, I note that the nominator has not made many edits to the article, and would like to inquire if regular editors were approached prior to the nomination as recommended at WP:GANI, and/or are involved in this GAN. CMD (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

There has not been a reply to my question above, nor work on the lead or citation issues I mentioned over the past week. Further reading through, I would agree with the comments on the 2020 peer review, that many areas of this article are individual match stats with no apparent indication of overall relevance of notability. This begins in the third paragraph of 2003–2007: Development and breakthrough, and occurs at various locations throughout. This is not to say that every statistic or match fact is like this, some do provide an explanation of interest and notability, but even the specific examples raised in the last peer review don't appear to have been touched at all. Another issue is neutrality, particularly in the article's WP:TONE. There is a profusion of quotes, both in quote boxes and in the text, many of which do not seem to add much encyclopaedic context. The Player profile section seems quite jargon-heavy, and uses quite flowery language that could easily be rewritten to be more accessible to a general audience (eg. "make him an aerial goal threat in the penalty area"). The Career statistics section could use some prose to summarise the table and note the most notable achievements. There are some scattered throughout the article elsewhere, so it's very odd there's no text about them in the dedicated section. The same applies to the Honours section, which has the additional issue of half of it being a list of seasons played, which is already covered under Career.

Given the issues identified, and especially given the lack of activity, I am closing this now. Before a new nomination, it would be good to make sure issues raised in the Peer Review are dealt with, as well as those I have mentioned here. CMD (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)