Talk:Borussia Mönchengladbach 12–0 Borussia Dortmund/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose is generally fine. My only problem would be starting a sentence with a number; the opening line of the match section. Also I don't like breaking up the texts with the quote boxes, and think the quotes should be used in the flow of prose in the main text. The lead, per WP:LEAD, should not contain facts that are not used elsewhere in the article. The claim that the game is still a Bundesliga record should be in the article; probably in the aftermath section.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Referencing needs to be improved. I've added some tags to claims that need referencing.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This is the main worry for me. The article seems very light on information. For example, the match commentary suddenly jumps from 1–0 to 6–0. How did the game pan out? What was the attitude of the Dortmund team? Did Dortmund create anything? What was the reason for this being such a one-sided affair that led to the record scoreline? Why was Rehhagel sacked? What was the reaction by both coaches' and the media in general? Who made the claims of match-fixing?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * Images seem fine.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * My main concern is that the article is nowhere near extensive and broad enough. There is so little information about the match; compare it to other matches that have good or featured status. The lead, while fine length wise now, probably needs to be longer too to summarise all the facts. There are also a lot of statements that need referencing, many of which seem personal opinions or original research, such as "After a shaky start" and "they were highly motivated". At the moment, there's too much work to be done and so I'll have to fail the article. Brad78 (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * My main concern is that the article is nowhere near extensive and broad enough. There is so little information about the match; compare it to other matches that have good or featured status. The lead, while fine length wise now, probably needs to be longer too to summarise all the facts. There are also a lot of statements that need referencing, many of which seem personal opinions or original research, such as "After a shaky start" and "they were highly motivated". At the moment, there's too much work to be done and so I'll have to fail the article. Brad78 (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)