Talk:NK Maribor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —Darkwind (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Criteria

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	While the article is understandable, and the spelling appears to be correct throughout, some of the grammar is non-standard (see detailed comments below). I suggest enlisting help from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors to correct any non-standard English usage. 06:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC) ~~The specific errors I pointed out have been resolved, but there are still a few lingering in the article. I'll go ahead and do a copyedit myself. 16:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)~~ Addressed. 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~Please go through and make sure all of the peacock terms are either cited or reworded. 06:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)~~ Addressed (they all have citations). 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~Specific statistics in the lead section should be cited there, even if they are also cited in the rest of the article. This includes founding date, etc.~~ (Addressed 16:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)) Also, statements like "most successful club" must definitely have a citation if they're not to be taken as non-neutral. Finally, I do not speak Slovene, so I may need to get a second opinion on the sources themselves (i.e. are they reliable, etc.) 06:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Addressed; the sources seem reliable enough (primary source for the statistics, secondary sources for the qualitative descriptions). 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Further, after running Checklinks, I found 4 dead links in the references, which are now tagged in the article as such. Please look for and find alternative sources for these dead links if possible. 16:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Addressed. 23:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The history section could use some trimming — it's almost as long as the History of NK Maribor "main article" on that topic. If there are any details here that are not in the main "History of" article, they should be moved over. Then, see where else you can simplify or eliminate fine details; there's no need to go into lots of detail in that section because there's another article for the subject. 06:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC) ~~After further review, the history section is not excessively long or detailed, but it does need some sub-headings (level 3) to break it up some visually. 16:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)~~ Addressed. 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	~~Pending citation of possibly peacock terms as noted in 2b above, the article is sufficiently neutral. 06:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)~~ Addressed. 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Let's take a week or so to improve the article and see where we're at. 06:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)~~ All criteria have been met, the article passes. 23:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

Hello! This is my first Good Article review, so please have patience as I work through reviewing the article. I have some initial suggestions noted above, with details here.

1a: Some specific examples of non-standard grammar I saw include:

"Maribor's fans are considered as the best in the country." — The as is unnecessary.
"(lifetime honorable season ticket holder)" (in the Famous fans list) — I think you mean "honorary".
"considered one of the most beautiful stadium in the world" — Stadium should be pluralized.
"Similarly to Olimpija," — "Similar to" is the correct usage. The adverb form of similar ("similarly") should not be followed by "to".

1b, 2b, 4: Please make sure that all of the terms that might be considered peacock words are cited with a source that specifically uses that term or something very similar. Many of them are; others are not.

This article seems close to GA status, so let's see if we can get it there! —Darkwind (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. When I went to your talk page to notify you of the review, I noticed that Ruhrfisch (t c) advised you not to cite excessively in the lead section. I don't want to give conflicting advice, but specific numbers and facts in the lead should still be cited as readers may want to verify that information. See WP:LEADCITE for specific guidelines. —Darkwind (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello! Thank you for your review. I have a question about the history section. How much trimming does it need? I am asking this because although the history section in the main article and the whole History of NK Maribor article are currently almost the same lenght, I have to say that the latter is in its initial phase and is far from finished. I just didnt had the time to work on it lately as there are couple of other NK Maribor related articles that I am currently editing. However, when History of NK Maribor will be completed then it will probably be divided into two separate articles (most likely focused on the Yugoslav and Slovenian period, detailed season by season) and will be a lot longer then the current main article history section.Ratipok (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already improved the references in the lead and fixed the specific grammar items I'd pointed out; great! As for the length of the history section, it really only seemed disproportionate when compared with the other article. It is not unreasonably long compared to the rest of this article. If History of NK Maribor hasn't had the same level of work done, then it makes sense that the other article isn't much longer.

Visually speaking, though, the History section does seem to be a little bit "wall of text", as it is 9 fairly large paragraphs in one big section. Perhaps using level-3 headings to break it up might help, such as "Founding", "Bribery scandal", and so on. Three or so sub-headings would be appropriate, I think.

As for the grammar items, the article is still somewhat peppered with minor errors. I had suggested that you get a copy edit from an uninvolved member of GOCE, but in order to save time, I can go ahead and go through it for you as I am also a GOCE member.

Also, a new action item for you: under 2b, I ran the checklinks script against this article and found 4 dead links, which I've tagged within the article so you can find them (the tags appear in the References section). Please try to find alternative sources for these dead links if you can. If you do not find an alternative source, do not remove the dead links, as a dead link might come back to life or someone might find a cache copy online somewhere in the future.

I'll also probably have more feedback about the "peacock terms" I mentioned, once I'm done with the copyedit. Thanks again for your willingness to work with the feedback I've provided! —Darkwind (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the copyedit; all of the peacock terms I saw have been sourced, so it looks like the only thing left is seeing if the dead links can be resolved. —Darkwind (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks a lot for your contributions and help. I have removed the dead links and replaced them with good ones. The only other thing I have done was to move the "Current status" section in the history paragraph couple of lines up, since I believe that the current team and successes are the direct result from the "five year plan" of Zahovič, Milanič and Šimudnža (a trio that came to the team from 2007 onwards).Ratipok (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, then -- all of my concerns have been addressed, and the article meets all of the good article criteria. Congratulations! —Darkwind (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]