The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm a new editor here at Wiki and this is my first review! I love football and I'm hopefully going to be contributing to a lot of football-related articles myself in the future and improve football articles on Wiki. So I thought I'd start here - excited to see what this article has to offer! Yakaba99 (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First issue I've noticed is in the intro. There is a list of the sports that this club is involved in, but only basketball and handball have citations. Furthermore, the handball citation is just an image and this cannot be considered a reliable source. I think citations are definitely needed for the other sports too. Second issue is also in the intro. "being widely considered across Asia as the winners of the AFC Champions League in 1971" - says who? No source given to indicate that the wide majority of Asia consider Al-Shorta to be the winners. The rest of the intro is fine! Yakaba99 (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added sources for all the sports now and also corrected the 1971 ACL part. I wasn't aware that it was there, an IP added it. Hashim-afc (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Five league titles and Champions League heroics (1962–1974)" section, it says "They became the first team to win the title three times in a row, storming to the 1967–68, 1968–69 and 1969–70 League of the Institutes titles". The phrase 'storming to the title' is rather editorialised and not really the type of word I think would be suitable in an encyclopaedia. Also it seems the same issue from the intro has flared up again with the statement: "they are now regarded by vast majority of people in Asia as the winners, with the subsequent expulsion of Israel from the AFC" which is not sourced at all. Other than that, this section is good. Yakaba99 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the "New era and more Champions League success (1974–1992)" section, there seems to be a bit more editorialising; phrases like "the same club we know today" and "embarrassingly conceding eleven goals in a humiliating defeat" just don't seem correct for an encyclopaedia. This section seems particularly well-sourced though. (I'm going to have a deeper look into the sources themselves tomorrow). Yakaba99 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Seven trophies but seven cup final defeats (1992–2003)" section, it says "This season also saw them reach the quarter-finals of the Asian Cup Winners' Cup, earning wins over Al-Seeb and Bargh Shiraz before their quarter-final exit. Al-Shorta also reached the quarter-finals of the 1999–2000 Asian Club Championship (later to be known as the AFC Champions League), just missing out on a semi-final spot in what was another respectable tournament for the club." Both sentences need to be sourced. Yakaba99 (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying of this. I have added a page from the Al-Shorta SC Website about Al-Shorta in AFC Competitions as a source for both sentences. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Bunyan brings back glory days (2013–)" section there is a mention of winning the Baghdad Cup but no cited source for this. Sorry, just noticed that the source for them winning the league covers the Baghdad Cup win too. Yakaba99 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look at the Emblem section and all the logos have non-free use rationales which is great. Just a note though, the 1962-1974 crest and the 2004-2005 crest are both in the public domain (former due to it being more than 50 years old and latter due to it being just the Iraq flag with two words i.e. doesn't meet the threshold of originality). So there's no need to have them as non-free logos. I would also question whether you really need all 7 logos in the section but I'm not a non-free logo expert so I'll have to read more about it! Yakaba99 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "Kits" section is not very well-sourced and it's pretty limited in its information. Probably needs a re-write with more citations added in. Yakaba99 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried my best to improve this section but there's not much to write about the kit history. I added a bit more about the origins of their purple kit, most of the info is from one source (Al-Shorta website's history page). Hashim-afc (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "Honours" section also has the statement "Al-Shorta are widely regarded across Asia as the winners of the tournament" which again is not sourced. Yakaba99 (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So far, once you've corrected the few minor mistakes I noted above then this article will definitely be a good one. It's clearly written, broadly covers many areas of the club, is neutral (apart from the "widely regarded by Asia" part which you should remove), does not have any edit wars and the images are appropriate with fair use rationales. I am going to have a deeper look into the sources tomorrow to see how reliable they are and I'll also re-read the article again. As long as the sources are reliable, there's no copyright violations and you correct the issues I've noted above, there will be no problem in passing this as a good article. Well done! And if you want, please provide feedback for me - this is my first review of an article so I hope I've been clear in my assessments! Yakaba99 (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your review, you have made the issues very clear and it has definitely improved the article. I have applied all your recommended changes and now I hope the article can be considered a good article: thank you! Hashim-afc (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is well-written and covered all the major details about the club without going into unnecessary detail. It is cited very well (nearly 100 sources) and I have checked through them and they are from a wide variety of reliable sources (including club website, Iraqi football news sites and newspapers and even one book) and there are no unreliable sources like fan-made Facebook pages or anything like that which are quite common with these types of articles. These are my comments with regard to the six GA criteria:
well written:
No problems with spelling/grammar. Fluent prose and well-structured.
verifiable with no original research:
Nearly 100 citations from sources like newspapers, the club website, football statistics databases and even a book.
broad in its coverage:
History of the club is broadly covered but well-summarised, doesn't go into unnecessary detail. Only section that I think might need a bit of adding to is perhaps "Kits".
neutral:
Now that the 1971 AFC Champions League statement talked about above has been removed, there is no bias at all.
stable:
No problems at all.
illustrated, if possible, by images:
The images are all relevant and have suitable captions as well as fair use rationales where appropriate.
All in all Hashim-afc (I notice that you are the main contributor towards the page) and others who have contributed, you have done great work with this page and there's no doubt that this is a good article. Pleasure to review this and I hope I've done well for my first review! Well done. Yakaba99 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for File:Ultras Green Harp Logo (2012–2013).png, File:Ultras Green Harp Logo (2013–2015).jpg and File:Ultras Green Harp logo.png being used in Al-Shorta SC#Emblem. There's lots of content provided about these sources, but none of it discusses the sources in detail and there is no discussion of these images found in the source cited in support. I'm not sure how this kind of thing might effect your over all review of the article, since most of these images could be removed without being detrimental to the reader's understanding, but simply having a non-free use rationale does not automaticlaly make the use valid and it's not a given that the use of any of these non-free logos would survive a WP:FDD discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Hello Marchjuly, thank you for this! I also had my suspicions that perhaps all the 7 logos did not need to be on the page (I think I mentioned it above) and I was going to read more about non-free logos and rationales etc but truth is I forgot to! I know only a little about non-free logos and it seems that you know a lot more than me. Even if the non-free logos were removed it would not make a difference to the review because as you said it would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding if they were removed. Just to make sure, was I correct about the 2 other logos being in the public domain? And as you know more about this issue, what do you recommend should do with the non-free logos? Should they just be removed? Or does it depend on whether Hashim-afc can provide better sources for the logos? Thank you. Yakaba99 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that as an account with no history of articles editing on Wikipedia that you should gain much more experience and become much more familiar with relevant policies and guidelines before trying to do a GA review. You may have acted in good faith, but your account was only two minutes old and the second edit you made anywhere on Wikipedia was to start a GA review. You probably would be better off letting another more experienced editor review the article for as explained Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Shorta SC/1. I also hope that your should appearance to review this article is not realted to WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT in anyway because that would be violation of WP:MULTIPLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the reviewer was a sock of the nominator, all of the actions have been reverted, including the listing as a GA, the nomination removed from the talk page, and this is being closed. The article is no longer listed as a Good Article, and the reassessment has been cancelled since the GA listing was revoked. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well done. Yakaba99 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
