Talk:Palermo FC/GA1

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

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
 * I will review this article. Lampman (talk) 08:25, 11 February 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 article is not in hopeless, but there are some issues with language and layout in particular that will have to be addressed:
 * The lead is too short for an article this size; more can be added about club history etc.
 * The third kit is pictured twice in the article; this is redundant. Also, the history section is a bit stacked with pictures leaning towards the earliest age. I would suggest removing the original logo and instead include a more recent photo, for instance this picture of Luca Toni, who is probably the most prominent player for the team in recent times. Commons should be made full use of, so that all relevant pictures are available one click from the article.
 * Many sentences are too long and convoluted, so that the meaning can be difficult to extract. Some of the worst cases are the sentences beginning:
 * "Some authorities..."
 * "The initial staff..."
 * "Zenga's reign however..."
 * "In a letter..."
 * "On the occasion..."
 * "However, Palermo is also widely..."


 * "...promoted to Serie A after 31 years under head coach...", this sentence is ambiguous; it can be taken to mean that the club had the same head coach for 31 years.
 * There are a few peacock terms that need to be removed, including "legend", "excellent" and "impressive".
 * There are too many embedded lists. "Shirt sponsors and manufacturers" is redundant; this information is peripheral, and is not commonly included in quality articles about sports teams. The same can be said for "Presidential history". Only a very few of these men seem to have independent notability, so there is no point in the list. If desired, it can be rewritten in prose form with focus on the most significant individuals.
 * The word "unique" in the "Colours and badge" section is used incorrectly; it means "only one".
 * "Palermo's biggest rivals by far...", this may be obvious to anyone acquainted with the clubs, but it still needs a ref. The same goes for the Raciti incident.
 * There are 9 dead links among the references, and ref 36 needs to be formatted. Lampman (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that some measures have been taken to improve the quality of the article, though all of the issues raised above have not been addressed, and there is still some way to go. I will give the article one more week's hold before I reconsider whether it should be delisted or kept, please contact me if there are any questions or comments. Lampman (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Though certain improvements have been made, most of the above issues still remain. This goes particularly for poor language and structuring, and various problems with referencing. The article has been on hold for two weeks; this should have been plenty to address the issues. I will therefore delist it now as a GA. If the improvements are made in the future, however, I'd be willing to give it a review for a re-nomination. Lampman (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)