Talk:Arsène Wenger/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 22:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am a slow reviewer, so if there is a desire to have the review done soon, then let me know and I'll withdraw now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements rather than make long lists, though sometimes I will make a general comment, especially if there is a lot of work needed. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Pass

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• No edit wars. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Images are OK now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and informative with no significant problems. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Focus. There is a good spread of information about Wenger, though the Arsenal section could be trimmed so that it is more about what Wenger achieved, and less about the history of the club - statements such as "Striker Dennis Bergkamp and a blend of Wenger's new signings, Emmanuel Petit as a partner for Patrick Vieira, winger Marc Overmars and teenage striker Nicolas Anelka also flourished" and "United also eliminated Arsenal in extra time after a goal from Ryan Giggs in a FA Cup semi-final", could be refocused. But that is really part of ongoing development, as the section does concentrate enough on Wenger to meet GA requirements. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Coverage. Major aspects of Wenger's life and career are covered. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Sources check out, and any discrepancies have now been noted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• No evidence of Original Research. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Query

*The image in the infobox is not the same as the one in the file - File:Arsene-Wenger.jpg. Any idea what has happened? The same error appears to apply to most of the other Wikis which use the file. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• The Monaco: 1987–1994 section uses a 2006 image of Wenger in Hamburg - File:Arsene Wenger2009.JPG - with a caption which references his time at Monaco. This is misleading. Better to use a contemporary image or none at all. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

*Sources. I've not checked many sources yet, but there appears to be a mistake with one. The statement: "He played as a defender for various amateur clubs, while studying at the Faculté des sciences économiques et de gestion of University of Strasbourg, where he completed a master's degree in 1971." is supported by a reference to this page which indicates that he was mainly a midfield player at Strasbourg, and gives no information about a master's degree (which I assume would be a "master professionnel" - a vocational qualification). Sometimes citations get moved around, or the wrong page or source is cited during work on an article, especially when there are several significant contributors. It would be good to get the right source, and to check up on the other cites. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

He holds a maîtrise (which is the equivalent of a Master's degree in French) in 'sciences économiques' → economics. I should have used L'Express, Issues 2125-2136 as the source, I don't know how the book ref got in there, apologies. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This source has him graduating in 1974 with a degree in Economics. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This interview in French (PDF) also has him down as 1974. Will correct. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm seeing comments that he has a masters in Economics, but not from reliable sources - often they are Wikipedia mirrors or fan sites. The better sources such as the BBC and Arsenal say he has a degree. Be good to get that firmed up as well. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The PDF confirms that it was a degree not a masters. It says he has a licence, which is a degree. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"titulaire d'une maîtrise en sciences économiques", L'Express issue in 1992, the one I alluded to earlier. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that. Found plenty of reliable English sources confirming his master's degree: here, here or here. This source confirms he graduated in 1974. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

When there is a discrepancy in sources the usual thing is to make a footnote regarding the matter, and not to take sides. Something like "completed a degree in economics in 1974"* *[some sources - example - say licence, the French equivalent of a batcher degree, others - example - say a masters degree]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Have addressed. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral POV. This is a query. The article is fairly positive as regards Wengar's achievements. Has enough been done to include reasonable criticism? Some of the negative material I am aware of and have encountered is in the article (his players being aggressive, for example), and appears to be explored reasonably, so it seems OK, but just wanted to raise it as a query. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The major criticism levelled to him in recent seasons has been reluctance to spend 'big' money and choosing to stick with a youth policy, instead of buying experienced players. I'm sure I can expand on that in the 'Plaudits' section. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm picking that up - as here, which also indicates that his youth system has not always produced players of the level required by Arsenal, though the compensation is that the players can be sold. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Wenger is regarded as one of the best managers of his generation" is in the lead, but not in the main body, and is unsourced. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• "often credited for revolutionising the state of English football in the late 1990s" in the lead, but not main body, and is unsourced. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Have sourced this now. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• "degrees in Electrical engineering and economics" in the lead. Says "read Electrical engineering" in the main body. No source for a degree in electrical engineering. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Ref 14 is the source for the 'electrical engineering' -- Lemonade51 (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at that source - it says "His masters degree in Economics from Strasbourg University - he also has a degree in Electrical Engineering...". The problem here is that while we do have sources which say a) he has a masters and b) that he has two degrees, that the sources which are closest to Wenger, such as his employer's website, and in depth interviews given by him and also by his mother, indicate that he has one degree. We need to be cautious here, and go with the closest sources which indicate he has the one economics degree, but make a footnote that some sources say he has two. It is possible he does have the two, but it is also possible that there has been a mistake in translation at some point in the past, and this mistake is being perpetuated and spread because it sounds interesting that a football manager should have two degrees including a masters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• The Marseille paragraph at the end of the Monaco section is a little unclear. I wondered at first if he had worked there, but reading again it is intended to provide fuller details on his comment about corruption. The amount of detail is a lot, especially as it is mainly external to Wenger. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm reading through the Relations with others section and wondered how much observations like this may be included. Wenger has in the past been publicly supportive of his players even when they were clearly in the wrong, and while this got him a reputation as a dirty manager, it does appear to have been a deliberate tactic in being supportive of his players, no matter what, in order to create a positive atmosphere. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This would also relate to the Team indiscipline and fair play subsection. And talking of that, is "73 red cards between 1996 and 2008" a lot, average, or a small amount? That's 6 a year. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It was 50 red cards during Wenger's first six years in charge. Which is a staggering amount. But in his defence, he joined a club notorious for disciplinary problems. Journalists would not compare his red card situation with other managers because the others haven't been in their jobs for so long. As for 'relations with others', he has said he can never be friends with managers because of 'mistrust': "There are managers I respect, and I respect what they do, but you cannot be completely friendly and open up." -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a source somewhere for red cards? I looked here and that says Arsenal got 60 red cards between 1992-2011. I looked here and that indicates that, including two yellows = a red, there were 31 sending offs between 1996 and 2008. I'm not yet seeing that Arsenal got more red cards than other teams. Where are these writers getting their figures from? One says 73, another says 50, while other sources give different amounts which work out at around 3 a year, which appears to be the average. I wonder if your second source of 50 red cards meant to say 50 cards in total, including yellow. A proper source for red cards would be very useful right now! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This?, from between 1996 and 2008 might be a start. In all competitions, not exclusive to the Premier League. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And I have got this, which doesn't show Arsenal as sticking out. Indeed, looking at the averages, it seems that Arsenal is pretty average. Perhaps the red card count should be left out as being too misleading? We don't want to start wandering into original research, and we don't want to be including sources which are misleading or inaccurate. If there are a number of sources which mention the number of red cards and they agree with other, then yes - but otherwise, we are on rocky ground. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That Daily Mail list looks fairly authoritative as it has the dates and players booked. Funny enough if you do a search on "arsenal red cards under wenger" then the number 73 keeps coming up, so there must be something in it. I would like an official source, but if none can be found, then it seems we have to go with that figure. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I work out it is 75 between the years 1996 and 2008. When that Daily Mail article was published in February 2008, it was 72, but a month later, another player was sent off, so the count went up. And in the following season, Adebayor and Van Persie were sent off. So it's 73 between Sept 1996 and Mar 2008, but there isn't a source for that. I guess 72 would be fine for now, providing it states the time period. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I would go with that. I checked the game reports at arseweb (a fan site) and the red cards all checked out. I assume the stats sites I looked at are simply not accurate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fail

*Prose. The prose is functional and mostly conveys the appropriate information - however it could do with a copyedit as there are some statements that perplex rather than inform: "after six years he ended his playing career and completed his studies at the University of Strasbourg." What studies? Why mention that here in the first paragraph of the lead? "As a manager, Wenger achieved greater triumph and recognition." Greater than what? I assume this means greater than his playing, but it's not clear. "...is a French football manager and former player." This is ambiguous - it sounds like he is the manager of the French national team. "Before he took up the reins at the club..." - a casual colloquialism that is unnecessary and potentially misleading; in addition it is not fully clear what the statement is intending to say. Is it that he was in negotiation with these players while still at Nancy? Some sentence structures could be arranged for better clarity - example: "It was there he hired former Valenciennes manager Boro Primorac, whom he had met during the 1993 match-fixing scandal involving Olympique de Marseille, as his assistant." could be arranged as: "It was there he hired as his assistant former Valenciennes manager Boro Primorac, whom he had met during the 1993 match-fixing scandal involving Olympique de Marseille." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.

General comments

• Not part of GA criteria, but I'm not sure all the external links meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:External links. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Have addressed. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Query - probably outside the GA criteria. I've just shuffled some of the sections slightly. It tends to be conventional to have the personal section after the professional section, etc. I'm looking at the remaining sections and wondering about the sub-section of Playing career in Early life. Some of the material there is not about his playing, it's about his education. Should Early life be one section? I also wondered if the Arsenal section is too long as one section (or sub-section). And also wondered if the statistics section should go before the Plaudits and awards section; and if the Plaudits and awards section actually belonged in or with the Honours section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Have merged the early life with playing career. If, going by Bobby Robson and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players, honours and plaudits should come before the statistics. As for Arsenal, I'll have a go at trimming it down, per WP:WEIGHT. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In those examples they have personal details before the professional statistics. O well! I'll leave the section layout as part of ongoing development. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Cite formatting is not part of GA, so this is just a general comment. When I find that a text has been scanned and is available on Googlebooks I tend to link to the page - in doing that I use the full citation method as that is the most common one used on Wikipedia. I note that this article sometimes uses short citation and sometimes full. It's OK for GA purposes to have a mix of short and full (indeed, you can use a bare url and that is acceptable for GA, though it would draw comments!), but if you wanted to take this on to FA the reviewers there have a strict interpretation of cite formatting which means they like to have the same formatting throughout an article, so you'd need to make a decision as to which way to go - short or full. I have just put in a full citation linking to the cited page - if you want to go to all short, then you'd need to undo my cite and put back the short one. I have no problem with that, though I would recommend that before doing that you consider the advantages of the more informative full citation and the usefulness of a direct link to the cited page. Some editors prefer the look and neatness of the short citation method. Each to their own! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Last push

This is a very decent article. Plenty of detail, presented in a clear and readable manner, with areas of uncertainty explained. Two areas that still need attention - there was discussion above about including material covering recent critical comments on Wenger's youth policy; that still needs to be done. And the lead needs a final brush up to ensure it does summarise all of the main sections in the article. To be honest, I doubt I'll fail if the work is not done (I'd probably have a go at doing it myself), but to be fair, a decent attempt at tackling it should be done. I'll hold for another seven days to allow the work to be done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've just expanded the lead a bit. It was crudely done, so needs tidying, but that, along with the extra material you've added, are enough to meet the GA criteria. I'll now list as a Good Article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)