Talk:Zlatan Ibrahimović/GA1

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 17:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this review. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2023 (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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * 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:

I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments
Putting this on hold until the above comments are addressed. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * His first playing years are organised by team, while his latter years are organised by year. This creates WP:RECENTISM and WP:NEUTRAL issues. I would recommend removing the year subsection headings, and organising by club; for clubs where he stayed a long time, divide by theme, not year.
 * On a related note, there's a lot of unnecessary detail. Unless goals are important for other reasons, they shouldn't be given their own sentence.
 * WP:WTW look out—"the Catalan giants", "PSG's league conquest", "in idiosyncratic style", etc.

A week has passed, and the above comments have not been addressed. I think that the issues with unnecessary detail is enough to fail this nomination. Best wishes, AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)