Talk:SS Lazio/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Under review. Otto4711 (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well written:

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

The article needs to be copy edited for grammar, especially correct tense.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Lots of unexplained football jargon (scudetto, table, relegated, etc.) Lots of peacock words (pitiful, stingy, etc.).

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.

Article appears well-referenced but I don't speak Italian. I am going to ask for a second opinion from an Italian-speaker.

(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
(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Obviously written from a fan's perspective. Adjectives need to be neutralized. Similar to the issues with style noted above.

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

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

The image of Goran Pandev. I don't understand why it's located where it is or what it brings to the article. He's not mentioned in the section which has the image. The caption also needs to be neutralized.

Overall

I am placing this article on hold pending a second opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a full second opinion, but I did already have concerns regarding the referencing. There are large parts of the history with little or no references. Italian references would be fine, but I'm sure more could be provided, and a lot more.

I also have concerns regarding the breadth of coverage of the History section - it is extremely heavily weighted towards the recent events, and glosses over the club's early history.

You also points towards the quality of prose.

I rarely review Football articles because that's where I principally contribute anyway, but it seems to me a lot more work could be done on this article. Just for a start, the Italian article is FA-standard, and I feel at the least a translation of that could help to beef up the article. Peanut4 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't know much about how these European sports clubs operate, but the lead says that they participate in many more sports, and then the entire rest of the article is about football. I don't see how the article can be comprehensive if there is no mention of anything but football. At least a section on the other sports and how they work, finances, how many people participate, etc. Then again, if there is a really good reason, perhaps not. - Taxman ^Talk 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]