Talk:Maria Sharapova/GA4

Good article reassessment
I have nominated it for reassessment as it is in a very poor state indeed.

Against the GA criteria, I have the following summaries:

1. Well written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; ✅

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * We've got lists of quotes and notable matches. We've got an inadequate lead per WP:LEAD.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;


 * Citations are not consistently formatted.

(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;


 * Many "facts" have no citations.

(c) it contains no original research. No

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; ✅ (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * The article is massive and goes into absolute minutae about the results of every match, down to individual set scores. 1/3 of the article contains various year-by-year, result-by-result summaries as well.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. ✅


 * So much so that the prose is incredibly dull, just result after result after result...

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Some editors have expressed concern over the POV/OR of the "notable" matches and the non-encyclopedic nature of the "quotations" section. These editors have also attempted to remove said issues but have been continually reverted by User:Tennis expert, effectively creating an edit war.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; ✅

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.✅
 * Actually very nicely illustrated, but easy with the subject matter.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)