This review is transcluded from Talk:Simon Olsson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lucfev (talk · contribs) 21:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 17:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. Comments to follow in the next few days. Please consider reviewing another nomination at WP:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have somewhat forgotten about this, so I'll make some edits to finish the translated titles for sources and update the statistics. Lucfev (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Prose is generally good, just a couple of minor issues:

• Tenses are sometimes a bit wrong: The club had qualified for European playoffs, and the first leg against FC Twente was to take place on 1 June 2023." and also "His contract would last for four years until" are a little over-complicated.
  • See WP:WOULDCHUCK for one issue many editors get tripped up by, including several times in this article.
• I think the table needs adjusting
• "Following the passing of his father, Olsson received the news that he would be selected for the senior Sweden national team to play in upcoming friendlies." a reader needs to be able to tell when this was.
• There is a little lack of detail on his last 1.5 years at Heerenveen. How did they perform in 2023–24, or between the summer and winter of 2024? What were Olsson's final figures at the club when he left? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed the following points, apart from the table comment as I am unsure as to how it needs adjusting. Lucfev (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MY mistake. All good here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation numbers refer to this version; hopefully I'm able to translate the Swedish well.

• 18 good
• 30 does not appear to verify that it was Olsson's first match of the season.
• 31 good
• 44 good
• 60 good
• 69 good
• 83 good
• 95 good

7/8 is enough for me to pass this citation spotcheck once the one issue is actioned. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lucfev (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]