Talk:Maria Sharapova/GA4

Good article reassessment

I have nominated it for reassessment as it is in a very poor state indeed.

Against the GA criteria, I have the following summaries:

1. Well written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;  Done

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.  Not done

We've got lists of quotes and notable matches. We've got an inadequate lead per WP:LEAD.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;  Not done

Citations are not consistently formatted.

(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;  Not done

Many "facts" have no citations.

(c) it contains no original research. style="background:#FFC7C7;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-no"|No

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;  Done

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).  Not done

The article is massive and goes into absolute minutae about the results of every match, down to individual set scores. 1/3 of the article contains various year-by-year, result-by-result summaries as well.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.  Done

So much so that the prose is incredibly dull, just result after result after result...

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.  Not done

Some editors have expressed concern over the POV/OR of the "notable" matches and the non-encyclopedic nature of the "quotations" section. These editors have also attempted to remove said issues but have been continually reverted by User:Tennis expert, effectively creating an edit war.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;  Done

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Done

Actually very nicely illustrated, but easy with the subject matter.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)