Talk:José Luis Chilavert/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 10:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I will do this review. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): 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):
 * 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:

This article has multiple issues:


 * There are several dead links in the references, see here.
 * There are several issues with WP:REPEATLINK.
 * The lead is repetitive. Since most statements given about him in the lead are not likely to be challenged, there is no need for so many references at this point.
 * Many references lead to sources that are not considered WP:RELIABLE, such as #7, #10, #29, to name a few.
 * A lot of statements are unsourced, I placed templates here and there. Given the large number of dead links and unsourced statement, the informations in this article are practically non-verifiable.
 * Scope: The club career section is way too short, while the international career section is overly long in comparison. I am therefore failing 3a and b.
 * The header Leadership and morality does not seem NPOV to me. The section also lacks encyclopedic tone.
 * Quotes: That's what Wikiquote is for.
 * The tables in the statistics section are a mess. Missing borders, sources all over the place. This is not in compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
 * Honours: Completely unsourced.
 * Several references are just links, with no other information given (author, publisher, date etc.).
 * The captions to the images should not have full stops, since they are not complete sentences, see WP:CAPTION.

As you can see, I had to fail several of the aspects of the GA criteria. Given the large number of problems this article has, I am failing this nomination without putting it on hold, since I do not believe the issues can be dealt with in the usual time frame of seven days. Feel free to improve the article and re-nominate it once it is done. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)