Talk:Dennis Bergkamp/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 06:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this up. First impression is that it looks pretty close to GA. It's well-referenced, it's comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail, and the prose is generally good. I'll go in for a more careful look - I think there will be some minor issues with the prose in spots - but first let me know you're ready to take questions.--Batard0 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First take:

This generally looks good. Just a few suggestions to begin with to improve the prose:

The second sentence of the lead is structured somewhat confusingly. I would consider a slight rephrasing to something that flows better, for example: "He started as a wide midfielder and subsequently became a main striker, but he spent most of his career as a second striker." Or something like: "Originally a wide midfielder, he was moved to main striker and then to second striker, where he remained throughout his playing career."

Used the latter sentence.

I'm going through and making some minor edits for clarity and conciseness. Please have a look and discuss if you disagree with them.

No problems, thank you for thoroughly looking over the article's prose.

Is there a reason Non-Flying Dutchman is in bold in the lead? I think it ought to be in quotations instead, unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. I believe WP:Lead allows significant alternative titles to be bolded, but I think that only applies to the first sentence.--Batard0 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will remove bolding, have placed quotation marks and removed citation as the origin of the nickname is expanded in the main body, which is cited.

The article's in good shape, really. I've made a thorough look through it, and I have cleaned up the prose in places. I didn't change anything in a significant way; I only fixed grammatical errors and edited out a few inessential words for conciseness's sake. I think if we can get the aforementioned things addressed we'll be good.--Batard0 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The images are all appropriate and in commons, and the refs look good too. Well done.--Batard0 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

After a few very minor adjustments, the article meets the GA criteria.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The prose is clear and concise, and lacks grammatical and spelling errors.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Complies with basic MoS rules.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Refs are all there, and are good.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Citations are provided where needed.

C. No original research:
No OR here.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
It covers all the major aspects.

B. Focused:
It's focused without going into unnecessary detail.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
No POV issues.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are all in commons.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are appropriate for the article.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A well-written article that didn't need much improvement to meet the GA criteria.