Talk:AIK IF/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will do an initial review in the next few hours.

Reviewer: Taiwantaffy (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, here is the initial review, according to the numbers on the Good Article criteria page.

1 (a): Article prose is clear and concise

• There are some awkward phrases not usually used by native speakers of English.

Examples:

• "the ice hockey section of the sports association Allmänna Idrottsklubben" (from the lead): "sports association" usually refers to an organising body, like the Svenska Ishockeyförbundet, not a collection of teams under one name, like AIK. "Associated sports club" would be clearer.
• "In the team's 89 years long history" (from the lead): should be "In the team's 89 year history".
• "The team's first competition was non-championship series" (from "Early Years"): should be either "was a non-championship series" or "was the non-championship series" depending.

I won't point out everything that needs revising according to this criterion, as there are many instances. The article really needs a thorough copy-edit by a native English speaker - perhaps ask for help in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey.

1 (b): Article complies with the Manual of Style

• Lead section: A little light, could do with some more information
• Layout: No major issues
• Words to Watch: "In a remarkable and among the AIK supporters' historical game" (from the Downfall section): these are peacock terms. There are other examples, which a copy-edit would catch.
• Fiction: No problems.
• List incorporation: No problems.

2 (a): References to all sources

2 (b): Inline citations to reliable sources

• One dead link, to http://static.hockeyligan.se/upload/file/Spelschema%20Elitserien%202010-2011.pdf
  •  Fixed that one. HeyMid (contribs) 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

2 (c): Contains no original research

3 (a): Addresses the main aspects of the topic

• The Swedish article on AIK IF contains more detail - this could be incorporated in the English article. There are also other topics which may reasonably be expected in an encyclopedic article which are missing here, such as a section on the stadium, club playing colours, season-by-season breakdowns and so on. The article on the Calgary Flames provides a good example to follow.

3 (b): Stays focused on the topic

4: Neutrality

5: Stability

6: Images

• The Swedish and German articles on the subject have more images, some of which could be incorporated into the English article.

So, it's not quite ready yet for Good Article status. My suggestions for how to proceed would be (in chronological order):

• Add more information, particularly on the area outlined above under section 3 (a).
• Rewrite the lead section based on the extra information added.
• Add appropriate images.
• Ask a native speaker to give the piece a thorough edit.

I think the contributors have done a great job to bring the article to where it is now, but a little more work is needed. I'll put the article review on hold for now.

Taiwantaffy (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The nom seems to have retired, so you can either fail the article or ask a wikiproject to handle the remaining issues. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've failed the article against the GA criteria as the nominator has retired and nobody else has taken on reforming the article. Hopefully someone can come back to this in the near future and bring it up to standard. Taiwantaffy (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)