Wikipedia:Peer review/Cristiano Ronaldo/archive3

Cristiano Ronaldo

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is very close to being considered GA status and I am wondering what can done to fix the article before we nominate it as a good article.

Thanks, KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 03:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

References

• Refs 14, 18, 21, 160, 176 and 253 need an author.
• Ref 24 uses the first name - surname author format while all other to this point use surname - first name. Try to stay consistent with formatting.
• Refs 50, 51 and 56 use BBC rather than BBC Sport like the rest of the uses. Ref 190 lists BBC News rather than sport also. Try and stay consistent.
• Ref 58 links Manchester Evening News but its used before this. Move the link to the first mention.
• Refs 196 and 207 need a publisher.
• Refs 208 and 212 need a date.
• Ref 271 is from The Sun which is a questionable source. If possible, I'd be looking to replace this.
• Ref 256 returns an error message.
• Ref 26 is from about.com, what makes this a reliable source?
  • Same for whoateallthepies.tv (ref 116) and 1x2.eu (ref 127).
• Ref 134 needs a date and accessdate.
• Ref 49 needs the newspaper that published it.
• Ref 175 lists Inagist as the publisher but the site appears to be UEFA.com? Also needs and accessdate.
• Ref 20 could do with a publishing location and isbn.
• Ref 202 links BBC Sport but its used a lot before this.
• Consistent formatting appears different throughout. In a run through, I've seen The Guardian, www.theguardian.com and theguardian.com, ESPN, ESPN and espnfc.com, UEFA, uefa.com and the full organisation name.

I haven't reviewed much of the text, I'll try and have a look sometime but there's a few obvious issues I noted on a brief run through of the references. This is for the first half, so 1 - 290, but I'm sure you get the gist of what needs looking at throughout. At least this is something to get on with for now. Kosack (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I have done some of it to help out, that includes fixing up reference 18, 21, 24, 50, 51 and 56. Removed Reference 26 and moved the link to reference 58. HawkAussie (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Ref 14 and 253 - there weren’t any authors, so I changed the sources to ones that has listed authors. Purijj (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

And for Ref 160, 176 - added authors Purijj (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref 14 has become 15, a ref has likely been added since the initial review. Kosack (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Arthor added to Ref 15, thanks Purijj (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Refs 208 and 212, dates added. Purijj (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref 116, removed ref, as Ref 117 provided the same information and is a more reliable source. Purijj (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref 26 has already been replaced for a more reliable source. Purijj (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref 256, no error message present, most likely someone updated it, and didn't update this peep review list. Purijj (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref 127, better source added. Purijj (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Refs 196 and 207, publishers added. Purijj (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref 271 is from FIFA and not The Sun, most likely someone updated it, and didn't update this peep review list. Purijj (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The Sun ref has moved down to 270, likely a ref has been removed and knocked every other ref down a number. Kosack (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It's now a BBC source, thanks. Purijj (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref 134, date added. Purijj (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref 49, it's BBC, and not a newspaper. Purijj (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, this review is a month old now. On a high traffic article, it's likely that refs have moved around with additions and removals in that time. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

KingSkyLord, Minus the last two things on the criteria list, everything else seems resolved now. Purijj (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref 175, deleted as the scentence is unnecessary information. Purijj (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref 20, replaced source. Purijj (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Kosack, for the suggestion for Ref 202, please could you elaborate as I'm not sure what you mean? Also any other things you think should be amended, also KingSkyLord, if you have any ideas on how to improve the page so it can meet the requirements. Thanks :) Purijj (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The publisher, BBC Sport, is linked but its used frequently before this. If its going to be linked, it needs to be at the first use, not at a random point. Kosack (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

KingSkyLord, stil not sure what you mean. Purijj (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The ref (which has moved to 199 now) has the publisher BBC Sport linked. However, if you are going to link a publisher, it should be linked the first time the site is used in the article. Also, if you are looking for further improvements to make, as I noted in my initial review the points I listed are only for the first half of the references. At a quick glance these sort of issues (missing authors, publishers and accessdates, potentially unreliable sources and such) continue through the second half and could be addressed. Kosack (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

KingSkyLord, if I'm undertstanding this correctly (not sure if I am), you're saying that this is the first time that "|publisher=BBC" is used, though BBC is used beforethis, though the publisher 'tag' (or whatever you want to call it, don't know the correct wording) hasn't been used? Purijj (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

No, BBC Sport in that ref has a wiki link even though it used numerous times before hand. I've moved the link. Kosack (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

KingSkyLord, thanks. as you now have resolved that issue, I have checked that item on the list as completed. Other than that all the is left is to resolve the formatting issues with the refs. The first half of the refs should also be looked at again as this review was done some time ago. KingSkyLord, Kosack & HawkAussie I'll try to look at the refs to see what can be done to improve the article, be if refs or anything else, if you guys have some time, if you can do the same, we can get this page to GA status. Purijj (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)