Talk:Johan Ruijsink

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 06:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

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:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: Well written article. I love that it is short, but says all it really needs to on the subject. Would be great for you to hunt for a suitably licenced photo out there. The feedback below is a suggestion for improvement. However I do not think any of the issues raised by me actually prevent the article from meeting the GA criteria and so it is a pass before any of the issues are addressed. Because the data relied on by the Express is an uncontroversial fact and not about a living person (rather a sports event) I consider it okay on this occasion. Rest of the article is fine. Great work Lee Vilenski! MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Lead

• Why is the first sentenced referenced? Ref could be moved to second sentence in "Career"? I feel per MOS Lead that the lead section should summarise information mentioned within the body of the article (noting this one is necessarily shorter than some articles). So, I would move that reference to the appropriate sentence within the body and leave the lead to be free of citations. Looks neater. Up to you though.
• Same comment for the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead. Up to you.
• C/E suggestion: First sentence may not need a comma.
• Second sentence: Omit "After his first appearance at the Mosconi Cup"? Is it necessary?

Early life

• First sentence: Change "Ruijsink began coaching pool players in the early 90s, credited with empowering Netherlands' pool players, such as Niels Feijen and Alex Lely, and later Russian players such as Ruslan Chinachov and Konstantin Stepanov" and replace with "Ruijsink began coaching pool players in the early 90s. He is credited with empowering Netherlands' pool players Niels Feijen and Alex Lely, and Russian players Ruslan Chinachov and Konstantin Stepanov." Up to you, but I reckon my suggestion improves on readability of prose.

Career

• I removed an additional space between "9-11" and the period on the second sentence of third paragraph.
• Changed "Ruijsink would take over as captain" to "took over. Small c/e
• Another small c/e to sentence structure

Achievements

• The only major red flag (quite literally flagged red by my script) is the use of Daily Express as a source. It is considered generally unreliable per WP:RSP. For this particular fact, I do not really see an issue. However I think if you can find one, a better source is preferable. Happy for your thoughts on this.

References

• Reference [1] spot-checked and fine
• Reference [4] spot-checked and fine
• Reference [5] spot-checked and fine

Notes

This section is for any communication between us not relating to an issue above. ie: updates etc.

• Hi Lee Vilenski nice to work with you. I'm Max. I have done a few GA reviews before. As I still consider myself an intermediate reviewer at best, I try to find low hanging fruit, that is to say articles nominated for GA which are very likely to pass and require little improvement. I have already read the article and assessed it as almost certain to meet all the GA criteria already. However I will go through it in more detail and see if we can "polish the chrome" a little given a quick GA pass can be frowned upon. So, if my issues appear "niggly" please note that is because your work is already high quality and the reason why I chose it for one of my "practice" GA reviews. Given your level of experience, I actually would welcome feedback on my GA reviewing and if you feel I missed anything. I have authored a decent amount of content and had one of my own articles pass GA so I feel somewhat qualified to review this. Please let me know if you have any concerns. MC MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Made a start, will finish up tomorrow :) MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I have no issues with you taking up this review. I tend to appreciate anything we can do to make the article better, so I await your thoughts Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.