Talk:Clutch Gaming/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Yue (talk · contribs) 06:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SapphireBandit (talk · contribs) 00:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming this review. Probably will be done in a few days, though the process may take longer. Expect this review section to be empty for now, it will most likely be filled in by tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. SapphireBandit (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
A couple minor grammar errors found, I'll correct them myself when I have more time. SapphireBandit (talk)
Fixed minor errors; prose looks good. Passes. SapphireBandit (talk)

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Manual of style incorporation all looks good, passes. SapphireBandit (talk)
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:
References section uses standard formatting. SapphireBandit (talk)

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):
Sources selected for spot-check: 14, 20, 35, 38, and 41.
All of Source 14's associated information is contained in its source. Verified

All of Source 20's associated information is contained in its source. Verified

All of Source 35's associated information is contained in its source. Verified

All of Source 38's associated information is contained in its source. Verified

All of Source 41's associated information is contained in its source. Fixed
There seems to be no mention of the date of Clutch Gaming's merger in source 41, and source 42 is dated before the time of the merger. SapphireBandit (talk)

It seems that the table inside the Season-by-season records section does not contain any references. Please note that wikilinks are not a reference. SapphireBandit (talk) Fixed

Sources selected for additional spot-check: 6, 10, and 45.
All of Source 6's associated information is contained in its source. N
There is no mention in the source of the date of Clutch Gaming's founding. SapphireBandit (talk)

All of Source 10's associated information is contained in its source. Verified

All of Source 45's associated information is contained in its source. Verified

C. It contains no original research:
Sources selected for spot-check: 14, 20, 35, 38, and 41.
All of Source 14's associated information is contained in its source. Verified

All of Source 20's associated information is contained in its source. Verified

All of Source 35's associated information is contained in its source. Verified

All of Source 38's associated information is contained in its source. Verified

All of Source 41's associated information is contained in its source. Fixed
Unfortunately there is no mention of the date of Clutch Gaming's merger inside source 41, and as there are no other sources in the article dated past October 28, 2019, I'm gonna have to say there was original research here. SapphireBandit (talk)

Sources selected for additional spot-check: 6, 10, and 45.
All of Source 6's associated information is contained in its source. N
There is no mention in the source of the date of Clutch Gaming's founding. SapphireBandit (talk)

All of Source 10's associated information is contained in its source. Verified

All of Source 45's associated information is contained in its source. Verified

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No plagiarism found with copyright violation detector. SapphireBandit (talk)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Covers main aspects. SapphireBandit (talk)

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Generally doesn't go into too much detail. SapphireBandit (talk)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Seems to be neutral. SapphireBandit (talk)
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No article instability found. SapphireBandit (talk)
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:
Non-free use rational looks good. SapphireBandit (talk)

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Image is relevant; captions not required in an infobox. SapphireBandit (talk)
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@Yue, please fix the problems with the article within a week from now. After that, just ping me here, and I'll review the failed criteria again. Thanks! SapphireBandit (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SapphireBandit: Thank you for your review. I remedied the issues you highlighted below. For the dissolution date, I changed it to "at the end of 2019" instead of the exact date, as I could not find a (live) source for it. Let me know what else needs to be fixed. Yue🌙 16:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks good. The date sourcing is a little shaky since they just say "now", but I'm gonna go ahead and change it to "near the end of 2019" and say that's good. Other then that, since one source failed in the initial spot-check, I'm gonna go ahead and do another spot-check, as well as finishing up with the last criteria. Should be done pretty soon, only a little bit left now. SapphireBandit (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so unfortunately there is missing information from one of the new sources selected for a spot-check. Under normal circumstances I think I would just fix this myself, but considering that this is the second time missing information has been found in a randomly selected source, I'm gonna put this article on hold to give time for the remaining sources to be checked and updated by @Yue to their discretion. Please ping me again when you would like me to re-review, though I will be doing a much larger spot-check then, and I will probably be failing the article if there's missing info that time. Sorry for the trouble, your work on the article is great! But I gotta wrap this up. Ping me anytime and I'll get it done as soon as I can. SapphireBandit (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SapphireBandit: I rewrote some parts of the article and double-checked existing sources to ensure that the article content reflected only what was clearly stated in the source(s). Please do your next spot-check at your earliest convenience, and if there's still an issue, go ahead and fail this nomination and I will work on the article some more in the future. Thank you for reviewing this nomination. Yue🌙 01:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Improvements

Don't describe one team beating another like "[TeamA] swept [TeamB]", breaks rules for WP:SLANG. Y
Remove or reference the fact that Clutch Gaming merged on October 28, 2019. Y
The table in the Season-by-season records section must be referenced or removed. Unfortunately wikilinks do not work as a reference. Y
Un-italisize the League of Legends contained in North American League of Legends Championship Series, as its use there is part of the series' name. Y
Specify that clutch gaming is an esports team in lead and at least one section of the main article content, I believe this is an important identifier. Y
Remove or source the detail that Clutch Gaming was founded on November 20, 2017.