Talk:Roberto Firmino/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 18:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am on it! I hope I can even get a first review done today. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so first of all, naturally thank you for your work!

Nevertheless, I feel that this was far from ready for being posted as a GA nominee in the shape that is was. I have now fixed several minor prose issues and some bigger mistakes, since that took me less time than writing them down here. I have however, still multiple issues with this article:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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:

A very general thing, that I notice at pretty much all the articles of current football players: All the club career sections are ever telling me is he scored a goal here, another here, another one there. What it does not tell me, but what I find far more interesting as a reader: How was his overall performance? Was he considered one of the best players of his team? Was his form consistent or did it have ups and downs? The Firmino article tells me next to nothing about that. And it could! Apparently you speak German, so why don't you for instance take a look at the Kicker mid-season and after-season rankings, in which he was featured three times now? Check [1] and [2]. I am sure that there will be plenty of other German speaking articles discussing his form at Hoffenheim over the years of sites such as kicker.de or transfermarkt.de.

I dont speak German! I cannot understand the reference. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not speak German, how and why did you include so many German speaking sources? That casts into question everything that is in this article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To come to the more concrete stuff: In the lead, shouldn't it say that he plays association football as opposed to that other Football that is not actually played with your foot? I am aware that it is stupid, but that is what those bloody Americans force us to...

See other football articles, none mention association football. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be proof that the football community here has a sub-standard level of dealing with things, more about this later. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section "2011-2013" (I changed this header), second paragraph: Why are the goals against Bremen, Mainz and Wolfsburg in one sentence, and the one against Freiburg in another? Are those far apart? If so, how did he play in between? Was there a period of bad shape? You get my drift. Those informations are far more exciting than where and when he scored a goal. If I only wanted that information, a table would suit the cause better.

Nothing done about this so far. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also added some ^[when?] templates there. Saying when those goals were scored can already help the reader understand how his form developed over the season.

I think it is useless to add so many dates, you can very well check some other football GAs, like Kevin Nolan, John Johnson (footballer) amongst others. @Zwerg Nase:.RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Johnson (footballer) is an article you did by yourself, which was only elevated to acceptable shape by GA reviewers because they were not, just like this one, anywhere near GA level when you nominated it. I believed it only passed in its third attempt because the reviewer was very lenient. Kevin Nolan is slightly better because it gives information that this article here does not, but I would still question its GA status. Just telling me when a player has scored is not what a Wikipedia article is for. Unfortunately this habit is omnipresent in football articles here, and unfortunately it is widely accepted by the football community, but I don't see why this sub-standard should be rewarded. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the 2012-13 season paragraph: He played quite well in a season in which his team was almost relegated. That is noticable and should be included, if you can find a good source pointing out that fact. {{done{{ RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done! You give a source that says coach Gisdol saved the club from relegation and claim it was said about Firmino. That alone is a reason to fail this nomination. I changed this back. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence at the end of every season paragraph would be great, stating how his overall performance was considered in the press (again, the Kicker rankings can be helpful), but maybe he was also voted Player of the year or something by the fans of his club or something like that?

Nothing happened here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section "2013-": Why is the split here? As far as I can remember (and the statistics seem to back me up here), he had a difficult first one-and-a-half years at Hoffenheim, but his form picked up in 2012. So shouldn't the split of sub-sections be "2011-2012" and "2012-"?

The split has been made on the amount of information put in each of the section. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem a very good argument to me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section "2013-", second paragraph: Firmino played his first game... Was that the first match day of the season? If no, why was he left out of the squad before?

First match of the season, as well as first match of Firmino. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why don't you write it like that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The seven goal thriller: I remember that game well, but I doubt that many other readers will, so you should at least include what the actual result of the game was. Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
International career: After scoring 16 goals. I guess you mean in 2013-14. If so, you should write it that way. Cause now it might also be understood as "after his first 16 goals in the Bundesliga". Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I give the nominator the usual seven days to adress the issues at hand. All the best from Berlin, Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The seven days have not yet passed, so I give the nominator the rest of the time out of good will, but let it be noted that I am not willing to pass this unless major changes are made. And the example you set with the relegation play-off sources, I do not want to see such a thing again! That made the article worse, not better. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should not pass GA, the majority of content (which I have removed) is commentary ("He played in this game, he scored a goal in that game" etc.) which should not be included. This matter has been raised at WT:FOOTBALL. Furthermore there are issues with peacock language. Giant Snowman 13:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. As you can see above, I agree with you on the commentary style. Can you link me to an archived discussion concerning this issue in general in the WT:FOOTBALL group maybe? I cannot believe this was never generally discussed before since even biggest articles such as Lionel Messi ofter suffer from this... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I am losing patience here a little bit. It is my job to decide when I close this review. And as long as it is not closed, you should not make such drastic changes in the article. I will undo them once more and move the discussion about it to WT:FOOTBALL. Let us please wait for consensus on this issue before deleting content again. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The seven days have passed and the demands were not met, I am therefore forced to fail this article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you happy for me to therefore edit the article and remove all the sports commentary? Giant Snowman 17:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would still say that it would be easier to leave most of it and go from there, but I won't stop you. I would definitely prefer if you had a more productive approach: Not just take it away, but write something better instead. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the content I am removing cannot really be replaced, as it is trivial and unencyclopedic. Giant Snowman 16:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]