Talk:Dave Sharma/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 03:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.
Side note, I would love some input on a couple of Featured List candidates, Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship. I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated. MPJ-US 03:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the featured list requirements at all, but I'll take a look at anything which jumps out at me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
GA Toolbox
[edit]I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.
- Peer review tool
- No issues detected
- Copyright violations Tool
- Not seeing anything that is actually a violation
- Disambiguation links
- No issues detected
- External links
- No issues detected
Well Written
[edit]- "Since May 2013 he has" does not need the comma
- I think this has been done already?
- "studying medicine he began working" should have a comma after the introduction so "studying medicine, he began working"
- "in around 1999" can be simplified to "around 1999"
- This part confuses me " (including as the and US President Barack Obama's visit to Australia in November 2011." not as well written as the rest of the article, please reword this.
- Done, oops.
- The "Africa Branch" section really does not have enough info in it to warrant it's own section, can you add some details or perhaps merge it with the previous section?
- How's what I did? Can always merge it into another section if you think tha
Sources/verifiable
[edit]- All look reliable, correct format, consistent date format etc. when there is an author they're listed etc. It's all good
Broad in coverage
[edit]- It's a pretty short article, 606 words of "written prose" (excluding info boxes etc.) but it's not so short I would automatically fail it for not being broad enough.
- Since the criteria is "broad" and not comprehensive this is broad enough
Neutral
[edit]- Yes, factual and straight forward
Stable
[edit]- Short article history, no issues jump out at me
Illustrated / Images
[edit]- No issues detected
General
[edit]- @Callanecc: - So that's my complete review, pretty quick since it's a short article. I am going to put this on hold for 7 days to allow for improvements to be made. Let me know when you're ready for me to review again. MPJ-US 04:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @MPJ-DK: I think I've done everything you mentioned. Let me know if you notice anything else. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Callanecc: - I am okay with everything that was addressed, looking good. I am happy to pass this for Good Artice status. MPJ-US 20:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @MPJ-DK: I think I've done everything you mentioned. Let me know if you notice anything else. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)