Talk:Russell Ebert/GA1
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Thejoebloggsblog in topic 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.
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Issues:
- Some problems with missing references. These need to be supplied:
- Fourth paragraph of "Port Adelaide (1968–1978)" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- The rest of the players in "Port Adelaide non-playing coach (1986–1987)" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Second paragraph of "South Australia coach (1996–1998)" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- First paragraph of "Playing style" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- First paragraph of "Media" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Fifth paragraph of "Honours" - DoneThejoebloggsblog (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Suggest combing the short paragraphs in "Port Adelaide community programs" - DoneThejoebloggsblog (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- See above
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Article is very good. Will pass if the issues with referencing are resolved.
- Pass or Fail:
@Thejoebloggsblog: Any progress? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 18 August 2022 (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.