Talk:Paul Scharner/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Oldelpaso (talk · contribs) 20:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article has a good structure, it is stable, and broadly neutral. By and large references are present where appropriate. Unfortunately the reliability of those sources is sometimes below the required level (mostly due to heavy use of Transfermarkt, which in Wikipedia terms is not viewed as a reliable source). This and the prose require attention, more than could reasonably be addressed by putting this article on hold, so unfortunately this time the nomination has not passed. More detailed comments:

My overall impression is that the article relies a bit too much on purely statistical sources. While these are useful for filling gaps, basing significant chunks of text upon them can become problematic. For example, does it matter how many yellow cards he got? If it led to a red card, or a suspension that caused him to miss an important game, then that is worthy of mention. If frequent yellow cards have led to a reputation for indiscipline, then discussion of that might be expected under Style of play. But for a defender/midfielder to receive a few bookings in a season is entirely unsurprising.
As it contains user-generated data, Transfermarkt is not generally considered by Wikiproject Football to be a reliable source for player statistics (see for example Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_67#Filip_Kosti.C4.87_and_sourcing_problems or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_57#transfermarkt.co.uk). Goal.com is also viewed as not particularly reliable.
Is http://www.austria-archiv.at/ run by Austria Wien football club as the references section states? The about page seems to imply it is a fan site.
The references to the Wigan Athletic site only go to the front page of that site.
Not keen on the use of a sensationalist source like Bild.
The article could do with a thorough copyedit by a native speaker. A mixture of past and present tense occurs a number of times. In places the language is too informal for an encyclopedia: seeing the kick-off in twelve of his 13 games, or After being kicked by Joachim Löw. Some sentences don't make much sense, perhaps due to literal translations from German that lose meaning. Examples: In his homeland Austria he has a rather negative reputation, as he is mostly known for his scandals and is viewed as a barrater - "barrater is an obsure legal term that I had to look up, I suspect something like "trouble-maker" is the intended meaning. He practices his mental and autogenous training with great discipline is another, to use "autogenous" in relation to training makes no sense.
A mix of punctuation is used for scorelines. In English, scorelines generally use an endash as the separator, not a colon (1–0, not 1:0).
No link to SG Untersiebenbrunn?
References go after the punctuation in a sentence, not before.
Five non-free images is far in excess of what would be expected in an article about someone who is still and active footballer, and for whom free-use pictures can therefore be obtained. This is doubly so when the article already has a free-use picture of the subject; the non-free use rationales on the images are questionable at best.
(stylistic comment so not part of the GA criteria) The bolded subheaders for seasons seem unneccesary, as they create small, stubby subsections. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]