Talk:Real Madrid CF/GA1

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the History section, "In 1920", "In the early 1990s", and "In July 2000" it would be best if there was a comma placed after 1920, 1990s, 2000. Same thing for the Stadiums, Supporters and rivalries, Budget sections.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead, it would be best if "La Liga" was linked once, per here. Same thing goes for "FIFA", since its linked twice. Same section, "Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)", doesn't need to be italicized, per here. Same section, the dates in the lead go by "21 May 1904", but in the second paragraph of the lead, the date is "December 23, 2000", this should be fixed. In the History section, is there a reason why "1897" is linked? Same section, it would be best to fix the date settings, as stated above, throughout the article. Same section, why is "Real Madrid" italicized? Same section, link "Fabio Capello", once. In the Stadiums section, "1923-05-17" needs to be properly formatted, along with the other dates that are the same way as "1923-05-17". Same thing for the Statistics and records section, "Raúl González".
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):
Does Reference 58 cover all this ---> "On 9 May 2006 the Alfredo Di Stéfano Stadium was inaugurated at the City of Madrid where Real Madrid usually trains. The inaugural match was played between Real Madrid and Stade de Reims, a rematch of the 1956 European Cup final. Real Madrid won the inaugural match 6–1 with goals from Sergio Ramos, Antonio Cassano (2), Roberto Soldado (2), and Jose Manuel Jurado. The venue is now part of the Ciudad Real Madrid, the club's new training facilities located outside Madrid in Valdebebas. The stadium holds 6,000 people and it is named after former Real footballer Alfredo Di Stéfano. The Bernabeu has recently been upgraded to Elite Football Stadium status by UEFA"? In the Budget section, is there any sources for this ---> "Beginning with the reign of Florentino Pérez in 2000, Real Madrid transformed itself from a Great club in History of football team to a money-making machine. However the method of this transformation came under scrutiny from the European Commission and the Spanish Government after an examination into a property deal reported to have netted Real Madrid €480m. The club's sale of its training grounds to the City of Madrid in 2001 wiped out its debts and paved the way for the club to continue to buy the world's most expensive players such as Zinedine Zidane, Ronaldo and David Beckham. The City of Madrid had re-zoned the training grounds for development, a process which in turn increased its value, and then bought the site. The criticisms claim that the City of Madrid corruptly overpaid for the property to assist in turning around the clubs financial fortunes. The sale of the training ground to the Madrid city council and regional government for office buildings cleared Real Madrid's huge debts of €270m and enabled the club to embark upon an unprecedented spending spree which brought big-name players to the club. Moreover, the money gained was spent on a state-of-the-art training complex on the city's outskirts"?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the following statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to KSA13 who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]