Talk:Edwin St Hill/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Shall review. Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have practically nothing to ask before cutting the tape. These are my few comments:

• Early life and career
  • I think your readers might like a few words at the very end of the last sentence, just to put into context St H's success: I mean, what sort of opposition was there, touring in those parts?
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Selection for Test team
  • "was no longer eligible to play cricket for Shannon or Trinidad" – simply not available or disqualified for some reason?
    • The explanation was there, but a bit jumbled up, so I've rearranged. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Later life and career
  • "During the season, he was chosen" – St Hill, of course, but it reads as though it was Constantine.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Cause of death: I'm sure you'd have mentioned it if it had been known, but I raise the matter for the record.
    • Not a clue, and I've looked everywhere! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Style and technique
  • "accuracy of length, swerve and pace makes him an asset" – I know it's in a quote, but did the source really say "makes" rather than "make"?
    • Double checked, and yes. Extended the quote slightly to make it a little less jarring. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's my lot. Clearly of GA standard, in my judgment. A couple of points are made twice, which would attract flak at FAC but nothing to impede GA. If you like to consider the above minor points I'll revisit and observe the GA formalities tomorrow. – Tim riley (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I think I've got everything. Much appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This article does Edwin St Hill proud. It knocks spots off the Crickinfo page and the Wisden obituary. Tim riley (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)