Talk:Paris Saint-Germain F.C./GA2

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

Nominator:

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review. It will be used for the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. Comments to come soon. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

General comments

 * Nice article on such a big club! Per the authorship statistics, you are not the main author of this article. Has given their consent for the nomination?
 * I would suggest standardising how the club is referred to in prose. The nicknames "The Parisians" and "the Red and Blues" need to be replaced where they occur in the body. As "Paris" and "Paris SG" are not used in the body, I would suggest removing them from the first sentence as far-less-common variants.
 * The subsections "Out on loan" and "Other players under contract" need sources.
 * As I do not see any WP:QUICKFAIL-criteria fulfilled, I will start with the source spotcheck tomorrow. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck
This is a large article with 212 citations, so I will be spotchecking a random 10% selection. Citation numbers refer to this version.
 * 44 ❌ The words "crowning glory" and "legend" are not supported by the source.
 * 106 link should be marked as dead; otherwise good
 * 182 ❌ the source does not support "OM was bought by Bernard Tapie"
 * 45 ❌ neither this source or 46 support "the youngest club in history to win a European title at 26 years of existence"
 * 2 ❌ should be marked as dead; sentence closely paraphrases the source, and should be paraphrased.
 * 117 ❌ Again there is WP:CLOP: "The connection between Paris Saint-Germain and the city's fashion houses is a longstanding one." is a direct copy of the source
 * 61 ❌ should be marked as dead, alongside citation 60. Most of the preceding sentences are not supported by these citations, such as: "The club secured a maiden domestic treble (Ligue 1, Coupe de la Ligue and Trophée des Champions) in the 2013–14 season", "unprecedented", and "winning the latter with a record-breaking 96 points, becoming the only first French men's team to achieve that feat".
 * 18 ❌ This source is, judging from its homepage, a student assignment, and is thus unreliable.
 * 207 good
 * 110 good
 * 165 ❌ this appears to be a fan website and thus not a reliable source
 * 146 good, but 2023 doesn't need to be mentioned once, let alone twice, given the year is clear from the previous sentence
 * 81 ❌ "PSG won the Coupe de France" is not supported by the citation
 * 175 good
 * 205 good
 * 26 ❌ I don't think www.paris-canalhistorique.com is a reliable source—it seems more like a blog to me.
 * 31 ❌ Same for www.psg70.free.fr/
 * 88 ❌ "a tie amplified by the uncertainty surrounding Kylian Mbappé's future" is editorializing; the source does not say such a thing
 * 25 ❌ parisunited.fr appears to be a fan-published source, so not reliable
 * 79 good

There are thus issues with 13 out of 20 citations spotchecked—a huge proportion, and a look at the "References" section reveals significant reliance on fan-published websites. This is not acceptable at GA, and the article will likely need a large rewrite to achieve the required quality of reliability and source-text integrity. I will put this nomination on hold until 3 April to see if the nominator, who has waited a long time for a review, feels that this judgement is unfair. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The general analysis of the article and of the spotchecked sources seem to be accurate and fair to me. I can definetely fix everything you listed above in the next week, but fixing 65% of 212 citations is going to take more time than that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sadly, per the GA instructions, and considering much of the current article (prose and citations) will either be rewritten or replaced, I will have to fail this nomination then. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. Would you be willing to re-open it (via direct request to you specifically) if all citation issues are dealt with in the near-ish future? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can do that. If you rewrite and renominate, let me know on my talk page, and I'll try to review ASAP. Is that alright? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That works! Just FYI, I might get there this summer if I get to it at all. I nominated this article a while ago while I had more time, and these days I'm shorter on time. So, we'll see in a bit. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)