Talk:BBC Sports Unsung Hero Award/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The C of E (talk · contribs) 22:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this and my first thought is that it's mainly lists about the winners which unfortunately under the criteria is not eligible for GA status, you might like to try WP:FL. I think the prose needs a lot of expansion before you can really consider this an article suitable for GA status.

My review of the page as it stands:

The prose does rely quite heavily on primary sources from the BBC which I think ought to be addressed somehow
- Reading WP:WIAGA, it doesn't suggest that this is really necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first paragraph could do with more sources in it
- Can you be specific on which sentences require more sources for verification please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the list, no need to repeat a reference if you've already put it in that list in the same entry
- Not necessarily, if you're looking for "more" sources in the lead, why wouldn't it be practical to source the individual facts in the table? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only print source's names should be in italics
- Can you show me where that's the case in the MOS? The {{cite web}} instructions say "work: Title of website".... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to link the name of the publisher if it's already been linked
- Not necessarily, as long as the linking is consistent, then relinking is fine because you don't know which reference a reader may click first and so you don't know which instance of the publisher will be shown first. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page at the moment appears neutral, broad and follows the MOS however I do not feel it is anywhere near ready for GA status and I think it would be much better served as a Featured List. I'll leave it to you to decide how you want to proceed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a minimum requirement for prose? In the past I've seen plenty of good articles with much less prose than this? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the prose alone, it's that it's outnumbered by the lists. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that specified in the criteria please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GACR, the section titled What cannot be a good article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where it says that prose shouldn't be outnumbered by lists. Perhaps you could be more specific? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that depends if you think this is a SAL or not. Clearly you do which renders this nomination pointless. I'll withdraw it, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that in my opinion it would be better serves listed as a FL than a GA. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand what you're saying. Hence I'd like to withdraw the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]