Talk:Peñarol/GA2

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

This article is very far from meeting GA criterion 1a. A few examples, but the whole thing needs to be properly copyedited.


 * "After having its first tour in Europe in 1927, Peñaro won once again the Uruguayan championship in 1928 and 1929, and at the next year Peñarol beat Olimpia 1–0 on its first game in the Centenario Stadium of Montevideo."


 * "... though it was on this period that the stadium Las Acacias was inaugurated ..."


 * "On the years to come ..."


 * "... while it worst defeat was by 0–6 against Nacional"


 * "Peñarol holds various records, both locally and interantionally"


 * "The club is also the record holder for the biggest win, 11–2 al Valencia from Venezuela"


 * "Peñarol won the Uruguayan Championship in nine occasions"


 * "Moreover, the company MPC Consultants made a survey with 9000 Uruguayans, and it placed Peñarol at the top with 45% of the people inquired"


 * "... the confection process that was carried away by Argentinian Rody Soria, expert in the subject"


 * " Nonetheless, with Bayne in charge of CUR the sports team suffered its discrepancies."


 * "... thus seven out of eleven board members where from the official party"

I want to stress that these are just a few examples from many I could have picked out, and that simply fixing these will not address the serious prose problems this article has. Eric  Corbett  21:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I would object as I barely found anything wrong with the article, and my friend Wizardman reviewed it, and although he found some things I missed, he said, "The article seems to be GA quality so it's not major..." By the way, you cannot post something saying I'm bad at this, as that was a personal attack, especially the way you stated it. buffbills7701 21:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not an attack to state the bleedin' obvious. Eric   Corbett  21:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All those flag icons need to go too, per MOS:FLAG. Fortunately WikiProject Football/Clubs doesn't (erroneously) say to include them for players etc, and they shouldn't be in club articles. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove GA status. The prose is unacceptable, e.g., the paragraph about the confetti and "up to that point, world's largest flag in a football stadium..." (paraphrased from memory). Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see that much of a problem with the phrases mentioned before, (edit: I see now there are some minor mistakes that can be easily corrected) and its prose is good enough to be a good article in my view. I do reckon there were some minor mistakes in some translation, but not that many, and they can be easily corrected. The flags thing, I dunno much about policies, but I see no problem on taking away the flags.—Nuno93 (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All other requirements were not objected. I don't agree with taking out the GA status only because of its prose, when it isn't as bad as you mention. I'm gonna go through the article to correct any mistakes I might see.


 * @Kiefer: "Peñarol fans unveiled the, at that moment, world's biggest flag ever showed in a stadium". I don't see what's the issue with that phrase. The flag isn't anymore the biggest ever shown, so a temporal reference is given.—Nuno93 (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've changed the sentences mentioned and I corrected all mistakes I noticed. I copy-pasted the text on word and checked for any typos and spanish words. I took away flgas that on the tranfers section and on the managers section. There are only flag icons on the squad, which are there 'cause of the template.—Nuno93 (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In my personal opinion, you should ask WP:GOCE to copyedit it, and then resubmit it for GA. (I'm not sure that you are fixing the things that you think you are fixing.) Note that turnaround times for GOCE requests are several weeks normally. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

DelistProse is bad, and large chunks of the article are unreferenced. I will be delisting it later today as these problems will take a long time to fix.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  06:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Care to mention which ones? I don't see any big chunk unreferenced. The managers section may seem that way, but there are a couple of references at the title of the section. Only for the record, I still think prose is good.—Nuno93 (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Nuno93, but I don't see a lot of improvement. Let me assure you that the prose is most definitely not good, and does not meet GA criterion 1a. That's not something MS-Word can help you with. You need to recruit the assistance of a good copyeditor, perhaps from the WP:GOCE, as Demiurge1000 suggests, but a native English speaker at least. Let me leave you with just a couple more examples:


 * "Club Atlético Peñarol was founded on 28 September 1891, due to the motivation that came from employees and workers of the Central Uruguay Railway Company of Montevideo (CUR), company of English property that had run in Uruguay since 1878." Quite frankly that's just a word salad bordering on gobbledy-gook. What's a "company of English property"? What's the difference between an employee and a worker?


 * "... the next year a gathering between club officials was organized to make some reforms to CURCC's policies." Compare that with "... club officials met the following year to discuss reforming CURCC's policies". But what policies are we talking about anyway?
 * I really don't feel I have any option but to remove this article from the GA list. Eric   Corbett  12:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)