Talk:Fred Keenor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
"He began his football career at his hometown club Cardiff City after impressing in a trial match in 1912 that was organised by his former schoolteacher" - who did he impress?

The infobox image needs a caption

"Keenor, himself a patriotic man" - try himself a patriot instead

"made 21 appearances in the league during the season, scoring 2 goals" - two goals

"being transported to an army hospital in Dublin, Ireland" - no need to have 'Ireland' here, I'm sure everybody knows Dublin

" After the Final, Keenor stated: "Just because we lost in our very first Cup Final, I don't think there is any cause to get down in the mouth. I can say here and now that one day soon our followers can be sure that Cardiff City will bring that cup to Wales."" - any reason why this quote is italicised?

The 'general' subsection in the references should be renamed "bibliography" preferably, but feel free to ignore
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article is well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out fine. Once all of those minor prose issues I listed have dealt with then this should pass. It's been a pleasure to review this. JAGUAR 16:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thanks very much for the review, I think I've fixed all those points. Kosack (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I've checked through the article again and am happy that this meets the criteria now. Well done

JAGUAR 17:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]