Talk:Mike Burns (cricketer)/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Michael Burns (cricketer)/GA1)
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Harrias in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 20:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- "started his career with Cumberland" and "started his cricket career with Cumberland" in quick time in the lead.
- "could bowl medium-pace" two different wikilinks without unlinked text between them can often be confusing, any chance of a reword?
-
- "who bowled at a medium pace"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Link "all-rounder" in the lead.
- Also consider appropriate links for "average" in the lead for his batting and bowling averages.
- Opening sentence probably needs to include that he's now a reserve umpire.
- Add (ECB) after the first use of the expanded version so the next time you use the abbreviation it's clear to all.
- "Early life and minor counties cricket" section, you have "Burns... " twice and "he..." eight times. Perhaps mix it up a little bit more.
- Not sure if you've had GAs done before, but one thing I'd suggest (and I'm not GA expert) is to use the glossary of cricket terms for things we both take for granted, like runs, stumping, etc...
- Most were already linked on their first use, but I added a link to Run (cricket) and Century (cricket), plus a couple of others. Harrias talk 08:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- "who was the club's professional player" don't think you need "who was"
- "He had more first team.." -> "Burns had..."
- "His chances came particularly..." last bloke you mentioned was Piper...
- "Wisden Cricketers Almanack" missing an apostrophe.
- You link bowling average in the Move to Somerset section. So just a general note, link these terms wherever possible, and always first time round.
- "Minor Counties" or "minor counties"?
- Ref 14, apostrophe in the wrong place. Check others...
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
GA criteria edit
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Minor comments, so placing the article on hold pending their resolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)