This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded and referenced all over the place and would like to clean up any outstanding issues before I nominate it as a good article. In particular, I would like:
While the article is much improved, at this stage a good article nomination would be premature. This is mainly because of gaps in its coverage. While the GA criteria do not require everything to be addressed, the major things should all have good coverage. As an example, I found
Lee Hughes in the queue of articles awaiting GA review, it does a good job of demonstrating the sort of coverage to aim for. More specifically:
There is a big imbalance between the first half and second half of his career. The ten years of his senior career before Juventus are summed up in just two short paragraphs. Nedved was the fulcrum of the most successful Lazio side of all time, and this deserves more than a couple of brief sentences.
added 12 references, many through HighBeam, which has expanded coverage of his Lazio stint.
Likewise, in the international career section, more coverage is given to unremarkable group stage exits than the Euro 96 run that first brought Nedved to international attention (and led to his transfer to Italy).
added four references and match-by-match for Euro 96, including suspension and first international goal.
The circumstances of Juventus winning titles and then having them rescinded ought to be explained clearly. What prompted Nedved to play in Serie B instead of seeking a transfer?
added more information about the scandal and the player's reasons for staying.
Thanks a lot Oldelpaso. I will delete the claim with the unreliable source if I cannot find a good reference for it soon.
C67912:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)reply