Talk:Philippe Coutinho/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 14:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reviewed

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)[reply]

@@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)[reply]

Second opinion requested

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)[reply]

@Whiteguru:, I will not oppose a second opinion as long as it doesn't take another 4 months! :) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

[reply]

Observations

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

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)[reply]

@Larry Hockett:, sorry for the delay in my reply. I don't think that there are any issues with you picking this one up. You could leave a note at WT:GAN if you are uncertain but apart from that you should be able to get reviewing. Cheers! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I dropped the ball but will leave feedback by this weekend. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion from Larry Hockett

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:

Source says "The ink stretching from his fingers to his bicep form tributes to his parents, two brothers, and his wife Aine" while the article says "He has tattoos stretching from his fingers to his biceps which form tributes to his parents, two brothers, and his wife Ainê."

Source says "With space restricted and the need for skill and improvisation heightened, the diminutive Coutinho flourished." while article says "With space restricted and the need for skill and improvisation heightened, the diminutive Coutinho thrived."

Will now look at the article section by section, looking mostly at the prose (not doing a deep dive into the references yet).

Lead

This looks great. I just notice one issue. Coutinho is described as the most expensive midfielder "to date" but the source is from 2018. Maybe an "as of" date would work better than "to date". Done

Early life

The conversion from kg to pounds and ounces isn't quite right, but actually I think the birth weight can be left out because it seems trivial. He was an average-sized baby who became an average-sized adult (maybe on the small side for an athlete, but has a number of teammates the same height or shorter). If we were talking about Eddie Gaedel or Kristof Van Hout, it would be a different matter. Done

"As a child he was very shy and would prefer to be alone, he first started" - run-on sentence Done

Vasco de Gama

first team player - I think this should be first-team player. One instance in this section has a hyphen and one doesn't. Done

Inter Milan

the quote about the future of Inter is only sourced to Benitez Done

Liverpool

The way I read it, Benitez wasn't saying that Coutinho was world-class, but that he was going to be world-class. Done

2013-2014

Why the italics in Reds'?
- italics are often used for the team's nickname. I could remove them if needed.

The sentence about many pundits is only sourced to one pundit, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't support all of the info in that sentence. (Sturridge, for example, is mentioned once, but he was set up by another player.) Done

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)[reply]

Continuing ... 2015-2016

"suffered a hamstring injury... which ruled him out for five weeks" - I am more familiar with baseball and American football; in U.S. coverage of those sports, the injury causes the player to miss time, but the team (coaching staff or medical staff) rules the player out. There is another instance of this in the next section and one in the Barcelona section. Done

2016-2017

"but was very impressive with his performances against Manchester United and Swansea City." - Appears unsourced. Done Removed. Can't find any source for it and I don't remember him being particularly impressive in those games. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"all-time leading Brazilian goalscorer in Premier League history" - I think you can get rid of "all-time" here. Done

2018-2019

"scored a stunning goal" - Non-neutral. Why was it stunning and who was stunned? The link in the reference is dead. Done

The description of the goal is quoted from the article which I have archived. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Larry Hockett: I have addressed all issues raised, leaving replies for some. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REDMAN 2019 - Just remember to address the close paraphrasing issues near the top of my second opinion. Regarding the stunning goal, we just need to make it clear in the prose that the source (not Wikipedia) came up with the stunning part. Example: Writing for Goal, Tom Webber described the strike as stunning. It doesn't need that exact phrasing, just something in the spirit of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Once we get these issues ironed out, I'll make one more copyediting pass through the article, and I'll let you know if there is anything that I can't resolve myself. Thanks for your work! Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Larry Hockett: I have now addressed all concerns. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I have removed the sentence in the style of play section as I couldn't find a source for it. I have removed and replaced the other two you mentioned at the start of the article as well. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]