Talk:Pelé/GA1

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

Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 13:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Starting review
Hello, I'm old enough to have seen Pelé play and he was far and away the best footballer I ever did see. Therefore, happy to review this. Will commence soon. Jack | talk page 13:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Checking for immediate failure conditions
WP:WIAGA states that an article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as "quick failing") if, prior to the review:


 * 1) it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria:
 * 2) it contains copyright infringements:
 * 3) it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid — e.g., ,  ,  :
 * 4) the article is not stable due to edit warring on the page:

If the article has not failed any one of the above four tests, a full review will follow:

Full review criteria checks
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations):
 * C. No original research:
 * D. No copyright violations:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused: WP:TOOLONG
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Review comments
I have appended the two review criteria sections above and completed the "immediate failure" one as, following my initial reading of the article, there was no reason for an immediate failure by those criteria.

Nevertheless, I am seriously concerned about the article's length because, at over 133kb, it is far too long and must be split into sub-articles. For example, the career statistics section is over 38kb alone and I recommend that this should be made into an independent article within Category:Pelé, providing it is written with sufficient context so it does not breach WP:NOTSTATS. Similar courses should be taken with some of the career and honours material.

As such, the article fails criterion 3B above and I have no option other than to close the review at this point. Please see WP:LENGTH and WP:SUBARTICLE. Thanks. Jack | talk page 12:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)