Talk:Fulham F.C./GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
*It is reasonably well written.

• a (prose): b (MoS):

a. Throughout most of the article, the quality of the prose appears to be fine and is not a major issue. However, the "Club mascot controversy" section has some grammatically incorrect sentences. For example, "The Fulham FC club official mascot is Billy the Badger[8] who was the winning design sent..." and "...Billy walked across the goal during a match although..." need rewriting.

b. Phrases like "one of the most gifted players of his generation" and "In addition to being a springboard for many blossoming futures" appear far too often. The "History" section contains very few wikilnks, which means it could be difficult for the reader to understand what terms relating to divisions and rules actually mean.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

a. Most of the references are correctly formatted, but refs [5], [6], [7] and [10] are either bare or have parameters that need filling.

b. There is little referencing done in this article. 10 references says it all I'm afraid.

c. The vast majority of this article is original research. There are whole sections that are without citations, which implies to me that their content has been originally researched.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

a. Most of the important aspects of the subject are included in the article. However, there are other aspects of football clubs that I'm sure could be added into this article. For example, it could detail the colours, crests, statistics and records etc.

b. Sentences like "And to this day it can still be claimed that England have never won the World Cup without the contribution of a Fulham player." make me think this article is prone to drifting away from the topic.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  

Not really, no. Words like "renowned", "star-studded" and "desperately" certainly convey a biased viewpoint.

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (relevant and captioned):

Although, there is only one image in the article. It would certainly be more well-demonstrated if some could be included.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

I believe the article currently fails the GA criteria, and if improvements are not made, it will be delisted. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i looked at the original version of article when it was promoted with which it had 28 refs it may be a good idea if you look at that revison and see if you cannot see if that version is ok with the GA criteria and then save this version on the mainspace. I have not looked at that version but it may be worth a go to see if it has just got worse over time and it was previously alot better. 02blythed (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have readded the original history section, and I feel it is only fair to re-review the article.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

a. Most of the prose seems fine, but there seems to be a few sentences throughout that are gramatically inaccurate. "Healy opened his Fulham account taking advantage", "The Fulham FC club official mascot is Billy the Badger[8] who was the winning design sent..." and "...Billy walked across the goal during a match although..." to list a few. Jargon should be wikilinked, as this allows readers that are not familiar with football to understand the meanings of the various terms.

b. With regards to words to avoid, it is not clear to every reader what the "Northern Ireland set-up" is.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

a. References [5], [6], [7], [16], [17], [18], [19], [27] and [28] all need correctly formatting. Reference [13] doesn't really seem to be a reference at all.

b. Very little citation to sources in this article. This is a major issue and 32 references won't suffice.

c. A fair bit of original research appears to be present here. For example, the most recent sections of the history section appear to have just been updated after the events occurred, and have not been attributed to any sources.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

a. Most of the important aspects of the subject are included in the article. However, there are other aspects of football clubs that I'm sure could be added into this article. For example, it could detail the colours, crests, statistics and records etc.

b. Suffers from a bad case of recentism. The history section is hardly a history section.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  

Phrases like "stop the rot" and "snatched a dramatic draw" sound weasely. The article's tone needs to sound factual; this kind of wording hampers that.

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (relevant and captioned):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

This article shouldn't really have been passed in the first place; it was nominated by a user who was on Wikipedia for one day and for some reason decided to nominate most of the Premier League club articles for GA. So, I still feel this article is unable to meet the GA criteria and will be delisted if some vast improvements are not made. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now delisted the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)