Talk:Sunil Chhetri/GA1

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

Hello, my username is Ginger Warrior, and I will be reviewing this article based on the criteria required for GA status. I will start by conducting the "quick-fail" test, and should the article pass that test, I will then go through the article more thoroughly, and post a concise review in full later. This is my first GA review&mdash;should you have any queries, do not hesitate to contact my talk page, or if you have major concerns, contact a mentor. GW (talk)  15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick-fail

Quick-fail: PASS
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – Symbol support vote.svg Article's external links and footnotes verify player's existence;
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – Symbol support vote.svg Topic appears neutral at first glance;
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid – Symbol support vote.svg No such banners present;
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars – Symbol support vote.svg Some discussion on talk page on subject's name, but move request not pursued. Otherwise no problem;
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint – Symbol support vote.svg No.


 * I will post the full review when it is completed, hopefully in the next 24 hours. GW  (talk)  15:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Review


 * 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:

Criterion 1a) ✅
 * There are some issues, mostly concerning quotations, with the prose in this article. For example, the quote about him not having made any plans to be a footballer ends with a full stop, rather than a comma. Also, commas are used before other quotes where colons would be more appropriate. I'll fix this part of the review myself.

Criterion 1b) ✅
 * Since it's a biographical article, his birth place should preferably be in the parenthesis with his birth date.
 * It used to be there but it was removed since most football articles (such as Steve Bruce) don't have this but have the birth place in "early life" instead. Spiderone  16:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the guidelines and there doesn't seem to be anything about putting birthplaces in the first sentence, so that's fine. GW  (talk)  12:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Where it says he currently plays for Dempo, what league are they in, and what tier is that league in the context of the nation's football heirachy? If I was talking about Christiano Ronaldo last year, for example, I'd have said he plays for Manchester United in the Premier League&mdash;the top-tier of English football.
 * Reference 2 shouldn't really be in the lead if everything else in the lead is generalised from the main article. I'd advise putting it in the Early life section where it mentions his parents, for consistency.
 * Reference 1, the reference you've used to verify the player's name, seems to spell his name wrong. Use a source that spells his name the way this article spells it to avoid conflicts over the article's correct spelling.
 * In the lead, you've said "JCT FC" and then "JCT Mills" later on. I'm sure I'm not the first to be confused, thinking they were two separate clubs.
 * There are two terms which could be wikilinked - "Uzbek" and "round robin". I'll add these myself.
 * Jargon - I know it sounds pedantic, but what's a "goal"? A wikilink would clarify this. Also, you've said "Coventry City boss". By boss, do you mean the Chief Exec, the Director of Football or the manager?
 * I used wikilinks in both cases Spiderone  16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was more referring to the use of the word "boss". "Boss" can mean many things - an employer, a commander, someone who's more skilled than someone else, and so on. I've replaced it with "manager", as is used in the article Alex Ferguson. GW  (talk)  12:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A few words to avoid. Again, I know which ones, so I'll spend the time removng them.
 * List - the table at the end should ideally have its own prose, but since everything in the table is covered by the section above it, I'd recommend getting rid of the header "International goals". Good usage of the table though!

Criterion 2a) ✅
 * Referencing is immaculate. My only note would be to turn the "YYYY-MM-DD" format into written words, like "9 September 2009", but it's not necessary.
 * Most football FAs such as Bobby Robson and John Wark use this format so I'll stick with it. Some such as Thierry Henry use the other format but it's just personal preference I think. Spiderone  16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems fair enough. GW  (talk)  12:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just realised, as painful as it may be, all quotes need to be referenced directly after they end. The ones in the boxes are fine, but the ones in prose can't have their references at the end of the sentence.
 * I did the early life one, were there others? Spiderone  16:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 2b) ✅
 * Several problems, I'm afraid:
 * Reference 4 - Broken link
 * Reference 5 - Broken link
 * Reference 11 - Source claims he scored four in one match, not three in the whole tournament.
 * Reference 12 - Broken link
 * Reference 20 - Source claims he scored seven, not six.


 * I think I've addressed these now. Spiderone  15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As do I. GW  (talk)  16:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 2c) ✅
 * Article claims he played for the Army Public School in Delhi, yet no source backs this.
 * Claim he scored two hat-tricks for Delhi, no source for this either.
 * This edit left the claim about eligibility for the Nepalese team unreferenced.
 * I reworded it. Spiderone  16:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 3a) ✅
 * I can't personally think of any additional details missing from the article that are notable enough to warrant failing this review. Good work!

Criterion 3b) ✅
 * Article remains focused throughout. Especially good work on the international section in putting his efforts into context for the national team's performances.

Criterion 4) ✅
 * The part about the British government denying him a work permit. Article doesn't explain why. Also, it doesn't mean he had to play for his current club either. The way it's worded sounds like the British government forced him to play for that club in spite. One other problem, but I'll address that myself.

Criterion 5) ✅
 * I think there's been two reverts in about nine months. All good!

Criterion 6a) ✅
 * No free-use images, but permissions are all in good order.

Criterion 6b) ✅
 * In the image with Chhetri celebrating, whom has he scored against? The date would imply Tajikistan, but you'd know more than I would.
 * Unfortunately I don't. The person who uploaded it is inactive and I can't find it on Goal.com which is where it came from so I'll have to leave it for now. Spiderone  17:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's how it will have to be then. The caption's fine as is, but a more specific description would be better IMHO. GW  (talk)  12:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Result

9 September: I'll put this article on-hold for seven days, after which I'll come back and give it the once over again. If you feel all the issues addressed here have been resolved prior to that deadline, or if you feel you need more time, please tell me and happily respond. I'll help with any improvements, in addition to the ones I've already said I'll do in the review above.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with ✅. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it ❌. GW (talk)  12:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll address these after I've finished with my other GA nom. It could be a few days. Spiderone  12:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

11 September: Excellent work! Article now looks good on first impression. I'll go through it again in the morning with a tooth comb, but hopefully, this will be classed as a GA this time tomorrow. :) GW  (talk)  20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

14 September: Completed another review. There were a few minor errors in prose which I fixed myself. Everything else was fine, therefore the article will be passed. Well done Spiderone! GW (talk)  09:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Spiderone  09:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)