Talk:French football bribery scandal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk · contribs) 21:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments
Hi, This is an interesting article about an interesting event. As I read, I have a number of questions, so I think the biggest deficiency is that it is not broad enough in its coverage. Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Bribe section: as I read, I want to know more about the game. Who scored the goal? What did the bribed players do in the game? Who else did they influence and what did they do? What did Glassmann do in the game? VA was relegated, by only one point, why would the agree to do this? How was that received by their fans/others? For example, I had the Anne Brigaudeau article translated and there is more from that article that could be included here.
 * I've added more details of the VA match, particularly Glassman's in-game involvement. And also details about the AC Milan match.
 * I think the referee's quote from the Brigaudeau article gives insight into Glassmann and Burruchaga: "Usually, Jorge Burruchaga disputed everything. But that night, not only does he not dispute anything, but he asks the others to be quiet. Conversely, Jacques Glassmann, he runs everywhere as if he was trying to prove something." I think the line that OM lost on penalties in 1991 against Red Star when two players were absent is also relevant here. Please also include info about those. Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added both things.
 * I find that helpful. Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Aftermath section: Why did PSG and Monaco reject the title and the Champions League spots? I opened a couple of links and it seems that this info is there: PSG because of Canal’s supporters, Monaco because of Wenger’s suspicion his own players were involved in something similar at some time. The division of OM in the following years seems relevant to the aftermath. OM were allowed to finish the following year in League 1, but then were relegated with the two bottom teams (instead of 3) the following year. They finished top of League 2, but were not promoted (only two teams promoted and two relegated again). Did OM suffer financially from those two years in League 2 in the form of losing players or sponsorships? It appears they finished in the middle of the table their first year back up in League 1. Did OM’s Champions League spot get taken by another team or was it vacated?
 * Clarified why PSG rejected the title and CL spots, and that Monaco took them up. And added details about their financial situation, and being forced to stay in Ligue 2.
 * Thanks for clarifying that. Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like the timeline of the bribe and discovery a little more clear. In the Context section it says shortly after the match. Is that hours? days? weeks? The time in the Bribe section does not even have a date, so it is confusing. Years in the aftermath section are omitted.
 * Clarified the times to immediately after the match, and the exact date of the bribe conversation.
 * This is much more clear now. Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Was Mark Hateley's claim investigated or substantiated? Did the Scottish media believe it?
 * UEFA didn't investigate it, cannot see any other online sources about it.
 * Thanks for clarifying. Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The English language references appear to be reliable on first glance, but there needs to be some work on formatting. For example, please properly capitalize the all-caps titles.
 * Fixed all-caps titles.
 * Ref 22 is still all-caps. Ref 20 and 33 are the same. Please converge them. Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref fixes done.
 * Looks good now. Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Media seems OK on first glance.
 * CC share-alike licenses on all photos. Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There are some prose issues, so I think a third-party copyedit would be helpful once the content is addressed.
 * Give me a change to reread in the coming days for a better review. I see a typo in the last paragraph of the lead now. Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have commented on the issues that I've addressed. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

 * It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria. It needs work on being broad enough, but the other criteria seem close enough to standards.
 * This has been updated to address broadness. Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It contains copyright infringements. At first glance it seems OK.
 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. No cleanup banners so OK.
 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. The article is stable so OK.

GA Review

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):  Copyvio tool looks good
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Response

 * I've addressed the issues that you mentioned, added comments under the relevant comments. When you get a chance, please could you have a look? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response, . It looks much better, but there are a few more issues I have identified. Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All of my major concerns have been addressed. The nominator has added 6KB of new details over the course of the comments, including removing a duplicate reference. I am passing the GA Nomination. A well done, interesting article! Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please can you update the GA nominee Template on Talk:French football bribery scandal to passed, so the bot passes it. Also thanks for taking time to review. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)