User:No Great Shaker/GAR

Pending resolution of GAR setup issue

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

The article was reviewed in 2008 and elevated to GA. There has been substantial expansion since then. By summer 2019 it had attracted a content issue banner which was subsequently removed because due process had not been followed (see article talk page), but certain cleanup banners then became necessary and they remain in place.

The main problem is use of what may be unreliable sources, especially one self-published website. There is massive overuse of quotations and many if not most of those haven't been cited. The 2008 GA version did not include the huge matchlist which was added later and may have come from a dedicated list article (needs further investigation). It is proposed that the matchlist and first mentions section are shifted into a list article, or restored to their old one if such can be identified. The use of quotations must be moderated and all must be sourced. Content taken from self-published or unreliable sources must be challenged for other sources to be cited or the content to be removed.

To summarise the problems per the GA criteria:


 * 1a. The article is generally well-written with prose, grammar and spelling of a good standard. There is a problem with excessive use of quotations, many of which are unsourced.
 * 1b. Haven't checked this thoroughly but, on the face of it, seems okay. It is proposed to take the main list out, though, as above.
 * 2a. Complies with reflist standard.
 * 2b. Serious issue with self-published and potentially unreliable sources.
 * 2c. Given 2b, it's possible there is OR in the article but it will be difficult to find without comprehensive sources.
 * 2d. No apparent problems.
 * 3a. It is a history so the scope is very wide but it seems satisfactory in this respect.
 * 3b. The matchlist and first mentions lists constitute excessive detail which is why they should be moved to a dedicated list article. As this is a history, it should be narrative only with lists and stats limited to a necessary minimum.
 * 4. No comment at this stage.
 * 5. It is stable.
 * 6. Images are appropriate and without any evident issues.

I'd be willing to take this on as an individual reassessment but, realistically, it needs community involvement especially anyone with access to relevant sources. The only source I have is More Than A Game by John Major which discusses this period in its early chapters and will be useful up to a point. Apart from possibly ESPN, I'm unaware of any online sources that might be useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Report
I have put this off for a long time because I found it daunting but I've now worked through it and made a heap of changes. I've left several citation requests in the article but I don't think anyone will be able to supply them because I strongly suspect original research. This means that the article should be delisted, in my opinion, because OR and unverified content both contravene the GA criteria. I'll leave the review open for a period to see if other editors wish to contribute. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)