Talk:Andreas Tegström/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 03:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC) This seems a nice article. Review will proceed soon. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

The only (potential) issue I find with this article is in the "Early life" section. Unless the only given reference for that section adduces the following, you will need a reference for ice hockey information. If the current reference covers this, the article passes. If it doesn't, you will need to verify this information. An early congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. The ice hockey information is supported by the only given reference in that section. Before you pass it, would you specifiy that the good article criteria has been met? Mentoz86 (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will. The good article criteria has been met. Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested second opinion

On requested review, I think that QSL's pass of the article was sound. I'll add the caveat here that I'm not knowledgeable about precise language for association football, so it's possible there are some errors in that respect that I'm overlooking.

I found this phrase mildly confusing:

" while his team was in fourth place despite being dubbed in last place by every media outlet in Norway." -- do you mean something like "predicted to be in last place"? Or did Norwegian media actually misreport the place the team was in?

Another small quibble is that the names of print publications like Aftenposten should be italicized in the references. I removed a few repeat links and alphabetized the categories, but these aren't related to the GA criteria, just some tiny polishes.

Will fill in the checklist now to see if I'm missing anything.

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.	Prose is essentially clear, though I do have one quibble above; spotchecks show no 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).
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

As a non-Norwegian-speaker, it's more difficult for me to evaluate 2b (reliable sources) and 3a (completeness), but doublechecking a few of these newspapers, they seem reliable, and the career overview appears reasonably complete. I know you're hoping for more feedback here, but I don't have that much to give; I think you did a solid job on this, and I hope it'll be the first of many Good Articles for you. Cheers, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]