Talk:2015–16 Bengaluru FC season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 18:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead doesn't comply per WP:LEAD. It should ideally consist of two paragraphs (bearing in mind this article is quite large). At the moment it's made up of choppy sentences and doesn't summarise the main text in the body - can you merge them together to make it more presentable?
Done summarized the text as a readable summary. Coderzombie (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the Background section is unsourced
Done Added required source for the background section. Working on re-formatting lead. Coderzombie (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The Competitions section is well written and well sourced, so the main body is comprehensive. The only thing holding it back is the lead and the unsourced background section, so once they're addressed I will allow this to pass! On hold JAGUAR 18:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coderzombie: I wasn't aware of this, but I think the list of players is a WP:NOSTATS violation and is discouraged from GAs. I didn't know about this, but I was told that they shouldn't appear in GAs. JAGUAR 14:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar:. Fair enough. With the help of ArsenalFan700, we have re-done the lead and removed the objectionable section. Please take a look. Coderzombie (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Hm, I read the conversation you guys had about the squad section and agree that it is probably WP:NOTSTATS but I do feel we need a section for just the squad, plainly obviously. I noticed in 2011–12 Sheffield United F.C. season and certain pages like it, we have a squad section which is basically just the squad section from the main team's page. I feel that can be added at least just to show the reader that this is the squad Bengaluru FC were working with this season. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar:, @ArsenalFan700: The editor that raised objection for the WP:NOSTATS mentioned the age and the previous club. So, from the team season's page perspective it'd be a good idea to just add squad like ArsenalFan700 mentioned, without additional details. Coderzombie (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well come here, ArsenalFan700 suggestion doesn't make sense, because you don't need duplicate information. I see the squad that Bengaluru were working it in the player statistics. If a player didn't make an appearance, it should be there too, without any game. You should see how Mattythewhite or Lemonade51 do their season articles and none has that.--Threeohsix (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the only thing I can think of on that is that some players can show up for stats but not for the squad. For example, a youth team player might make the odd appearence but then not be officially part of the first-team squad. Same for players on loan from or to the club and the like (which the squad template can indicate a player is on loan). At the end of the day though this is no deal breaker for me... add it, don't add it, I don't care fully. Just throwing some things here and seeing what the opinions are. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once you play a game, you're part of the first-team squad, even if they don't play again. It will appear in the history books as having played a game for Bengaluru. Players that did not make an appearance can still be there, I put them in the table, but you can use prose too. Example, "25 players players made an appearance, but six players that were part of the first team did not, those were: player 1, player 2.". That Sheffield example just shows that you can get anything promoted through the unprepared reviewer, it's more tables than text.--Threeohsix (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and again I don't mind not adding it now but disagree that if you play you are automatically part of the team. Most teams have a listed first-team squad and sometimes add a youth player for a game here or there, usually in cup competitions. Arsenal for example do it for Football League Cup matches with maybe a 16 or 17 year old playing. They are not first-team players despite playing that game. Just called up. But still, point taken. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for the responses! I've checked through the article again and I'm satisfied that it meets the GA criteria. It is well written, well sourced and comprehensive. I'm not sure about the WP:NOTSTATS violation, but I think it's best for you to decide if they should be included or not. I'm not well versed in football articles (despite reviewing quite a lot), but I don't think the list would hinder this meeting the criteria in anyway.

JAGUAR 17:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]