Talk:Owen Hargreaves/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, 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) 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:

The prose for this article seems good at first glance, but I have not checked every part yet. The main issue with this article is that it does not have enough references, and those that are used do not always support what the article is saying. There is even a cleanup banner on part of the article, which automatically means that this cannot be a GA yet. My other concern is that the article seems to have undergone a few changes recently which were reverted. I had a quick check and it all seemed to be vandalism, but I'd just like a little reassurance!

The main content of the article seems OK, but it cannot be passed without references. Here are a few other comments.

Lead
 * Is it right to call him a current international when he hasn't played for so long? ("plays for England") Or am I being pedantic?
 * "during which time he won four German league titles and the 2000–01 UEFA Champions League". Surely he was part of a team which won, rather than won them himself?
 * "Substantial controversy": not sure about "substantial". Considerable? Or just "controversy"?
 * Not sure that the article cited can be used to claim that controversy remains in Canada about his "defection." Seems more like one journalists' opinion

Early Life
 * Ref needed for information about his father playing for Bolton and for his brothers.
 * Ref (2) does not have any of the given information about his family. It merely states "born in Canada to an English father and Welsh mother."
 * Is there anything else which could be added to this section?

Bayern Munich
 * There are no references at all for this section. There is a cleanup banner for it which is enough for the article to fail GA by itself.
 * Prose issue: Several paragraphs start with the season (e.g. 2001-2) which is repetitive.
 * What was the reaction to his performances? Could there be a comment on how well he was perceived to have done, or an evaluation of his performance from the press?

Manchester United
 * Not every claim is referenced. For example, "Hargreaves was finally unveiled as a Manchester United player on 1 July, having signed a four-year contract with the club. He was then revealed to the press on 9 July, along with fellow newcomer Nani. Hargreaves was given the number 4 shirt at Old Trafford."

International career
 * Needs references, especially for claims such as his being the second England player not to have played English league football.

General
 * What about his style of play?
 * Critical reaction to his performances?
 * I may be wrong, but wasn't it his England performances which made Man Utd wish to sign him? And maybe mention more about how they pursued him for a while.
 * The image needs Alttext, but this is not essential for GA.

As the article stands, it could be quick-failed. However, there is the basis of a good article here and I am willing to place it on hold for a week to see if it can be fixed. I'm sure there are plenty of references which could be used. Once the issues are addressed, I will check the prose a little more carefully. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As nothing has been done on this article for a week, I must unfortunately fail the article. The citing remains a major issue and I am a little worried that an edit war is taking place. I would be happy to review the article again if the fixes are made and the article is re-submitted. I still believe that the basic article is a good one. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)