Jump to content

Talk:Jeffrey Pollack/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

Hi, I am reviewing this article. Upon first view, this is not going to pass right away.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The prose is not sufficient. There are several prose problems.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are some questionable sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Not sure since all sections are short. It seems to focus on poker than anything else.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Poker is where he really became famous. While an article possibly could have been written based upon his activities at NASCAR, the WSOP seems to be his real claim to fame. I merged the early career into one larger section rather than several smaller ones.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea.—Chris! ct 06:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fair representation without bias:
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  3. 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):
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I will be adding specific comment soon.—Chris! ct 00:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Other sections

References

  • Fullcontactpoker.com or Poker pages.com might not be reliable
  • After some research, I find several good sources: [1] [2]

Chris! ct 01:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Modified several of the links. As for the Fullcontact link, I think it is acceptable as it is known quantity. Daniel is one of the biggest names in poker an known blogger on the subject with articles all over the place. I would put his articles on par with an article of any news reporter who has a blog elsewhere. Note blog <> unreliable, you just have to look at the source. In this case, I think Daniel brings the reputability that is necessary.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I'll try to get these done tonite/tomorrow, but I will be travelling from Wed-Saturday. If there are outstanding issues or new issues arise, I ask that the request not be closed, but kept open so that I can address them over the weekend.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can keep this on hold until you return.—Chris! ct 01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review 2
  • The Sports Business Daily and The Hotline need to be italicized in all instances
  • By the time The Sports Business Daily was sold in 1996, it was "recognized leader in sports industry news and is relied upon by top sports, entertainment, financial, and media executives worldwide." - need "a" between "was recognized"
  • I think you should mention the year he joined the NBA and NASCAR
  • "Rather upon their success the players experiences." cannot be an independent sentence
  • Sources are not the best. For example, this New York Times should be used in place of others because the former is more reliable
  • Some inconsistency on publishers
    • Poker pages.com vs. Pokerpages. Used either one
    • SportsBusinessDaily should be The Sports Business Daily
    • Publisher for ref 13 should be Business Wire. TheFreeLibrary.com is just a site that archive it.
    • Ref 20 is missing publisher info
    • Bluff Magazine an Player Magazine need to be italicized

Chris! ct 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made all of these changes last night, must have forgotten to save the status here, sorry.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to review this and provide helpful comments.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]