Talk:Evander Kane/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Early life section, this is just me, but maybe adding Evander Holyfield's nationality might help.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Vancouver Giants (2006–09) section, is "mononucleosis" correctly linked? Same section, please link "Spokane Chiefs" once. Dates in the references should not be linked.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Ref. 35 is missing Publisher info.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:
Are Hockeydb.com and HockeysFuture.com reliable sources?

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
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:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do. If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

Thanks for taking the time to review. I addressed the issues raised as follows:

Added Holyfield's nationality as American.
- Check.
I realize that mononucleosis is a disambig page and this should be avoided, however, the ref does not specify which type of mono Kane had. Is it ok to leave it this way?
- Yeah, but if you want to take it to FAC, it'll be a problem, but it's fine here.
Removed the redundant link for "Spokane Chiefs".
- Check.
Unlinked dates in references.
- Check.
Added publishes for ref 35: National Hockey League
- Check.
Replaced hockeydb.com and hockeyfutures references with Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Western Hockey League refs, respectively.
- I was just wondering if they were reliable... or not. But, if you replaced them with suitable sources, no problem there. :) Also, check.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do/if my revisions are not yet suitable. Thanks! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the review, and no, everything is taken care of. Thank you to Orlandkurtenbach for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]