Talk:Malmö FF/GA1

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

Review now initiated. Have initially checked that the "quick-fail criteria" do not apply, and notes that the article has recently (December 2010) been through both a peer review (with all issues raised subsequently addressed, as it seems) and a "make-over" by the Guild of Copy Editors.

Reviewer: Tomas e (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Full review
In general, the article is well written and quite well worked-through. I have basically only one issue which prevents me from passing the article in its current state, due to combined referencing and POV concerns:
 * The issue is about section 1.2 and the 1934 relegation, as described in the first subsection under the heading. Reference 11, 12 and 44 is exactly the same source (and even the same pages, so they could be compacted into one using  ), so this entire section depends on a single source to claim that a) this was actually common practice at the time, b) only MFF's records showed this, and c) it is more-or-less widely believed that the rival Malmö IFK was behind it all. While the second-to-last sentence presentes MIFK's involvement as hearsay, I'm concerned about the last sentence, that is phrased in such a way that it more-or-less presented as a fact (using the term "actions" and "treacherous"). This is a slightly POVish issue. At a minimum, since I don't have access to the book in question, I would like to have it confirmed that Smitt's book gives support for all the specific claims in a credible way, and I would like to see the statement in the last sentence softened to avoid POV issues, unless the involvement of MIFK is sourced in a better way. May I instead suggest something like "the belief in Malmö IFK's involvement has contributed to the long-standing rivalry between the clubs"? The statement in section 4 about the same event also needs similar polishing.
 * I have adressed the POV issues with replacing the second to last sentence in section 1.2 with your suggestion which I think is better than the previous one. I have also reworded the sentence about the same scandal in section 4 so that it reads: The supposed actions of board members of IFK Malmö in 1933... With the addition of "supposed" the sentence should be less controversial. I've also fixed the referecing for these sentences so that they are not standing as two different sources in the reference section but as one, I noticed that there are at least two other duplicates which I will correct too. Please inform me if you think that the controversial sentences needs more work or if the wording is OK for GA. How would you like me to confirm to you that Smitts book is a legitimate source? I will work on finding additional sources to confirm IFK Malmös supposed actions or at least confirm the existance of hearsay of the 1934 events ASAP.--Reckless182 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I found two sources that confirms IFK Malmös involvement in the scandal. One from the city of Malmös official website malmo.se and one from the website of the regional newspaper Sydsvenskan sydsvenskan.se. Both are respectable and legitimate sources which both explicitly say that IFK Malmö was indeed involved. This should count for something?--Reckless182 (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The other duplicate sources that I found are now also fixed.--Reckless182 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was two good sources (the city and a quality newspaper) that would not be expected to be "fan-written" and were quite specific, including indicating an address of "hearings". This now looks good. Tomas e (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In summary:
 * 1. Well written?: Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Final assessment on hold, see comment regarding sections 1.2 & 4 Pass (after update)
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Final assessment on hold, see comment regarding section 1.2 & 4 Pass (after update)
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass

The article has been put on hold for now, until the issues specified in sections 1.2 & 4 have been addressed. Tomas e (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * After the update I now feel that I can pass the article, as it fulfills the Good Article criteria. Tomas e (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)