Jump to content

Talk:Jabari Parker/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC) No deadlinks or disambigs. I'll start the substantive review in a few hours. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The only things I'd change:
    (1) In the lede, I think "before" is better than "prior to". It's more like people actually speak without being informal.
    Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (2) In "Sophomore year": is it "the USA Today" or just "USA Today"? I know most newspapers use the definite article, but it seems like I've heard USA Today without it.
    I could go either way. removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (3) In "Junior year": I'd spell out state names, not use postal abbreviations, but I don't think it contravenes the MoS either way.
    Spelled out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (4) The article isn't consistent in how dates are written -- some are day-month-year, others month-day-year
    I don't see any instances of this inconsistency in the notes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It turns out there was only one instance, caused by a template. I fixed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Citations are plentiful.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No POV in evidence.
    In the last section "basketball training guru" seems an overly promotional description of Tim Grover. --He to Hecuba (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Seems stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    No images, likely none available that aren't copyrighted.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, looks good to me. Passed. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]