Talk:Dave Stamper/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 12:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Do forgive me, but I'll be conducting this review with Michigan J. Frog's voice stuck in my head. :/

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS compliance is ok, but could be better. I'd drop the heading level on sections 2-5, grouping them all under "Career" or the like. However, the lead is much too short (given the length of the article, I'd say one paragraph of good size should do it. Two sentences is too little, though). Also, when you quote June Moon, you have "Dave Stamper says its sure fire." Should this be "it's sure fire"? I don't have a copy of the play so I don't know if this is a mistake in the original text (which case you should note it with [sic]) or a typo here.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Citations are fine, used appropriately, and everything mentioned is backed up nicely.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Scope is broad without going places it shouldn't.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Article is neutral and unbiased.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Article
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are fine. Both of them used are in the public domain so that's no issue.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm probably going to pass this article, however, before this can happen I would like the first point to be addressed. Just expand the lead to summarise the article's content a bit more - one sentence for every heading is about right. When doing so, though, bear in mind that sections 2-5 should be grouped under one heading, not left as they are. When this is done, let me know, and until then, I'll keep the article on hold.|I'm probably going to pass this article, however, before this can happen I would like the first point to be addressed. Just expand the lead to summarise the article's content a bit more - one sentence for every heading is about right. When doing so, though, bear in mind that sections 2-5 should be grouped under one heading, not left as they are. When this is done, let me know, and until then, I'll keep the article on hold.

I'm satisfied with the changes made, and will pass the article.|}}

Thanks for taking the time to review. I've done the body edits you've suggested, and will work on the lead in the next day or two. The June Moon problem was due to a OCR error. K8 fan (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added information to the lead. Would love to see a better writer polish the style a bit.K8 fan (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. GRAPPLE X 19:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for reviewing the article. Hopefully the Good Article status will attract the attention of a better writer than myself to tweak the prose a bit. As you can see from the history, I've added bits and pieces over a fairly long period of time, haven't done much to polish it and don't have the distance from the content to do a good job.K8 fan (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are more inclined to pitch in when they feel they're adding to something proven rather than needing to overhaul something rough, so you've laid a good foundation for future editors to improve this further. GRAPPLE X 19:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]