Talk:Carl Piergianni

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Piergianni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Carl Piergianni/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Oltrepier (talk · contribs) 08:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, thank you for nominating this article! I'm going to take care of this review, and I'll try to come back to you with my considerations as soon as possible. Oltrepier (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SBFCEdit: Sorry for being so late, I've honestly ended up forgetting about this review... I've now had time to take a closer look at the article, though, and I should be able to complete my assessment tomorrow! Oltrepier (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
here
for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (
    lists
    )    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to
    reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )    :

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Comments

@SBFCEdit: I once again need to apologize for being so late, but now I'm finally ready to give my verdict. To be honest, the article looks generally good: it is well-structured, focused and neutral enough, the sources generally look OK, and there's no evident trace of copyvio.

Prose and grammar

I'm a bit concerned, though, about some oddly-articulated and particularly long phrases here and there, which perhaps could be re-tooled and split up in two shorter statements. This is an example:

- "He made his Stevenage debut in the club's 2–1 away victory against Tranmere Rovers on 30 July 2022 and scored his first goal for the club in a 1–0 victory against Rochdale on 16 August 2022."

Also, there are instances where the same term is repeated multiple times throughout a single phrase ("He joined Peterborough's youth system [...] during his time in Peterborough's academy"), especially when the word "club" is involved: so, a bit more variation is needed on that front, in my opinion...

Other observations

Like I wrote above, the references look generally alright, but I'm not sure about using portals like WhoScored, since they might contain user-generated information and, as such, be unreliable... Also, I've deleted the cited YouTube video of the Salford interview myself, since usage of those sources is generally discouraged, and I didn't think that information would add much to the main topic, anyway.

Oh, and I noticed that one of the championships in the "National League North Team of the Year" paragraph of the Honours section lacked a citation: was it a mistake, or you just couldn't find a proper source?

Apart from that, though, I don't have any other issue with the article. Indeed, thank you for helping expand Piergianni's page: his career definitely deserves recognition, considering his latest achievements! Oltrepier (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier:. Thank you for taking the time out to review the article and apologies for the delay. All fair points and I agree with you regarding variation (I used to use 'side' as an alternative to 'club' but I appreciate that isn't particularly encyclopaedic). I've gone ahead and made all of the above changes as you've suggested (apart from changing the WhoScored reference, seeing as the characteristics and style of play section are based on Opta statistics over the previous two seasons). Let me know if there is anything else. Cheers! SBFCEdit (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SBFCEdit: Perfect! I've done just a little more copy-editing myself, just to make sure there weren't too many "Piergianni" throughout the text, while also correcting a few other duds. By the way, I often use the term "side" as a synonym for "club", too, so no worries. On a side note, I've noticed that you usually don't adopt the British English format for the articles you work on, but that's not a big deal for me: should you change your mind on it, though, make sure to update all of the dates across those pages. Anyway, I don't see any other glaring issue throughout the article, to be honest, so I think we're good to go now. Well done! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_Piergianni&oldid=1204727857"