Talk:Tim Bozon

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 21:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review--sorry you've had to wait so long for one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks like solid work: well-written, well-sourced, and ripe for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it. I made a few tweaks as I went; feel free to double-check me and revert anything with which you disagree.

Two minor clarity points:

• " His goal total was the most among all WHL rookies" -- that year or all time?
• "his points second and third overall on the Blazers" -- I'm not quite sure I understand how he took both second and third in points--is this second in goals, third in assists?

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See minor clarity points above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	What's the citation for "His goal total was the most among all WHL rookies, his points second and third overall on the Blazers."?
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	N/A
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	N/A
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Sorry for the delay. I went ahead and fixed up everything here. Any questions of comments just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)