Talk:Christine Sinclair/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 October 2017 (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:
- Made some minor copyedit changes
- 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:
- Two citations required; tags added to flag where
- 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:
- 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:
- One request (see comments below)
- 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:
- Style of play section is skating on the border here, but I will pass it
- 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- All images have appropriate licences
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- One template warning (see comments below)
- Pass or Fail:
- Comments
- Warning: Page using Template:Infobox football biography with unknown parameter "University". Resolve.
- Born in Burnaby, British Columbia to Bill and Sandra Sinclair Add date of birth, with an appropriate reference. I know it is in the lead, but the lead and article should stand separate.
- Similarly, her Order of Canada needs to be in the Honours section as well
- And second worldwide in all-time international goals scored also needs to be somewhere in the article
- Reformat FN 9, 12, 13 to match the rest of the article
- FN 32 is dead
- FN3 is dead (yes, I know)
All in all, very good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Walter Görlitz
|
---|
Once again, this shows that reviewers have no clue and GA doesn't mean the article is good or bad.
|
Thanks @Hawkeye7: for reviewing the article. I made changes to #1 and 2 in your list - will continue later. Hmlarson (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I have addressed the items you've listed above + re-ran the link check. Let me know if anything else needs updating. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)