Talk:Joe Ledley/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 19:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * This strikes me as rather short for the article and it does not really summarise the entire article. For example, it does not mention his birthplace, how his career progressed (for example his early years at Cardiff) or what seems to be frenzied transfer speculation which surrounded him. Nor does it mention his performances.


 * Early life
 * I'm not sure one sentence justifies a whole section to itself. Is there no other information available? The same could be said about "Personal life". I know some sports articles combine these two sections, and that may be a way forward, but is not essential.


 * Cardiff City
 * "A lifelong fan of the club, Ledley joined his hometown team Cardiff City at the age of nine and made his way through the youth ranks at the club.": Repetition of club, and this is not supported by the ref (his age and making his way through the ranks). If a ref can be found, I would suggest "A lifelong fan of Cardiff City, Ledley joined the club aged nine and made his way through the ranks."
 * The article claims his debut came against MK Dons but the ref says it was against Brighton.
 * "...which the Bluebirds won 4–1": Not immediately obvious to the non-specilalist which club are the Bluebirds.
 * What happened in his first three seasons? There are vey few comments at all on his achievements, opinions of critics, comments by managers, etc. Only four matches in total are mentioned and nothing else is included about these seasons. At the very least, an overview of what he did, how he played, what the fans thought, etc could be included. But then his last four seasons at Cardiff get extensive coverage about his performances, goals, etc. Why the difference?
 * "At the end of the 2006–07 season he picked up the goal of the season award for his strike against Barnsley." Context: who was awarding this? Why did he get it? And to follow up the above point, what about the rest of the season?
 * "Ledley began the 2007–08 season in great form and earned several man of the match awards in the first four months and in October 2007 he signed a two-year extension to his current contract at Cardiff.": This is the kind of detail and level of information needed; however, it should be "his contract" rather than "his current contract" (it is no longer current).
 * There is a citation needed tag in this section.
 * "In December 2007, Wolverhampton Wanderers offered a reported £2.5 million, which could go up to as much as £3.5 million with add-ons, to Cardiff for Ledley." Big problem here, repeated several times later. The sentence switches from past to present tense and makes it look like a straight copyvio (it isn't, I checked). I would also remove "reported" as the source just gives it as a fact (the subsequent "reportedly"s should go as well). I would also cut it down to "In December 2007, Ledley turned down a £2.5 million transfer to Wolverhampton Wanderers", but also see below.
 * "Despite the speculation about his transfer Ledley himself stated that he was desperate to stay at Cardiff but concedes that he may have no choice should a high offer be made." This sentence is unnecessary and again switches oddly from past to present.
 * There is far too much transfer speculation here. It does not need every newspaper or internet report about a possible transfer including (especially when other details are lacking); it could be limited to a general comment that he was several times the focus of transfer speculation, or that Cardiff received several offers for him. A general reference would be preferable, but if this is not available, a few of the sources given at the moment could be cited to one sentence.
 * "scored the only goal": Fussy, but this is quite close to the source.
 * I'm not sure semi-final and quarter-final should be capitalised.
 * "a goal which later earned him 'Player of the Round'." No need for quotation marks, but they should be double rather than single; also, who awarded this? Why was it so good?
 * "As well as his exploits in the FA Cup, the year was also Ledley's most prolific goalscoring year for the club as he finished joint top scorer with a total of 11 goals in all competitions": Presumably joint top-scorer for Cardiff rather than in the whole league?
 * "On 7 October, Ledley was named Welsh clubman of the year for the second consecutive year." It would have been nice to be told he was awarded it the previous year. Again, who awarded this? Why?
 * "when he fired in": sounds like a newspaper report rather than an encyclopaedia.
 * "The injury later required surgery[19] and Ledley was expected to be out for around one month[20] but managed to return in time to play against Swansea City, with his finger in a cast,[21] in the first league meeting between the two sides for nine years and scored with a left footed volley as the game ended 2–2,[22] a goal which later earned him the club's goal of the season award." There are a few issues here (e.g. no need to say how long he was expected to be out, just how long he was out) but the main problem is that this is a very long sentence which is difficult to follow.
 * "at the age of just 21": "just" suggests POV and should be removed.
 * "His performances in the absence of McPhail, which later earned him the Championship player of the month award for January,[25] meant that he kept the Irish international out of the side as he continued as stand in captain, including a 0–0 draw with Arsenal in the fourth round of the FA Cup." Another long sentence. And also lots more unnecessary transfer speculation around here.
 * "the end of the season saw increased speculation over his future, mostly from Hull City" Does not make sense: how can Hull City have increased speculation?
 * "Ledley was ""playing like he is somewhere else already"." Why are there italics here which were not in the source?


 * Celtic
 * Prose issues here: we seem to have a list of dates, matches, games and scores which are very repetitive and do not flow well. It is more like a fixture list and does not make any comments on how effective he was or what critics thought.


 * Honours
 * Not all the individual honours are mentioned in the text. This would improve the article slightly.


 * General
 * There is a complete absence of information about his playing style, what critics thought about him (which I have seen is available in some of the sources), and (apart from in the lead, where it is not referenced) any mention of his position. Is he creative or defensive? Does he dribble, cross, go for goal? There could also be more comments about his performances, even if it is just his manager saying what a great game he had or what amazing form he was in. I suspect that there is a huge amount of information available on this, given the high level at which he has played: it is not as if he is playing non-league football with no coverage. As the article stands, I don't believe it is anywhere near comprehensive.
 * These issues are the most serious ones I saw, but even if they were fixed, there are other (mainly prose) issues which need to be looked at. I would suggest asking an uninvolved editor to copy-edit the article before renominating.

I think this article is currently some way off GA status and needs more work than can be done in a week. As such, I will fail the article. If the work can be done quickly, and you want me to take another look, please let me know: if you re-nominate it, I would be prepared to review it immediately in that case.
 * Summary
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Several prose problems outlined above and the lead does not meet MoS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I did several spot-checks and most were fine. The only (minor) problems are outlined above.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Very uneven. There is minimal coverage of his first seasons and nothing on his style. There is not much detail on his effectiveness for Celtic. There should be some comments by managers, critics, fans, etc on his performances or effectiveness. Also, there is far too much detail about transfer speculation and bids by other clubs.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * One minor instance of potential POV
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: