Talk:FC Bayern Munich Junior Team/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 11:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is my first GA review so I will not use the flashy icons other reviewers have. My initial thought is a fail, but I have asked for a second opinion. Going on to criteria:

1. Well-written
 * here the article has the most striking problems. References are generally not needed in lead, as everything in lead should be repeated in the article. Also, the lead could do with a copyedit. The image to the left is horribly displaced.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable
 * with references sparse and only to Bayern Munich is not good enough. Include references from books and news articles about the team. Try a search on google-books. I've used a book on La Masia which also talked about Bayern Munich.

3. Broad in its coverage
 * Insufficient coverage. Noted graduates are simply subjectively selected. Again see La Masia for how to use an objective selection criterion.

4. Neutral
 * Quite pro-Munich, but there are seldom controversies with youth academies. Should be better with use of 3rd party sources.

5. Stable
 * Seems so.

6. Illustration
 * not very good layout. See above.

I am not a really experienced GA reviewer, but I agree with the review above. Other details:
 * The "Noted Graduates" table has to go unless a good criterion and a source are given. (Sandman888 also mentioned this, but this is really important.)
 * All the championships below "Honours" should be sourced.
 * The current references need some more info (the publisher for 2, 3 and 4 is "Youth Profressional Training USA").
 * Why is the location (Säbener Straße) important for the article?
 * "The ll youth teams" what is meant by ll youth teams?
 * Reference 2 shows that the youth teams and the senior team location, but not that this is unique compared to other high profile clubs. This looks like OR.
 * The article says that Bayern Munich II "currently" plays in the 3rd liga. This may get out of date if the article is not updated, it is better to make this "as of the 2010–11 season".
 * The technical staff should be sourced, and a date should be given as of which the information was correct.
 * In the "Noted Graduates" table, don't use 1st, but use 1st (per Manual of Style (superscripts and subscripts)).
 * The "Overview" section is not really an overview, but more a hidden trivia section.

But even with these improvements, the article does not have enough third party sources, so I would advise the nominator to improve the article with the points given above, and take some time to find more sources. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per above I've failed the page. Take some time to re-write and nominate again. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 10:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)