Talk:Jim Kilburn/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 23:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments –
- Use ndashes (–) instead of hyphens (-) in dates' ranges.
- Well spotted: bad mistake! Fixed now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- "He bowled fast-paced off spin." needs a ref.
- The ref was at the end of the next sentence. I've linked them to make it clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- You may link Barnsley Chronicle and the Yorkshire Post.
- Latter one done now, but I'd prefer to leave the Barnsley Chronicle as there is no article and I don't see the purpose of a red link for a borderline-notability article. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Kilburn's writings on the Yorkshire players of the 1930s and 1940s made them well-known to the public as personalities and he wrote several pieces for the Yorkshire Post which became well-known." comma after personalities
- You may link England team and Australia.
- Did the first; the second is not the team, and linking the country would be overlinking. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Don't you think the Bibliography section needs a ref?
- For a bibliography section, the books serve as their own reference, as I understand it. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Overall good work, very well-written. I really enjoyed it. Zia Khan 23:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm busy right now, will take a look later today. Zia Khan 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Final assessment
[edit]- GA review (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria and WP:GACN)
- Well written.
- a (clear and concise prose which doesn't violate copyright laws, grammar and spelling are correct): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and fiction:
- a (clear and concise prose which doesn't violate copyright laws, grammar and spelling are correct): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and fiction:
- Factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (well-referenced): b (citations to reliable sources): c (Wikipedia:No original research):
- a (well-referenced): b (citations to reliable sources): c (Wikipedia:No original research):
- Broad in its coverage.
- a (covers major aspects): b (well-focused):
- a (covers major aspects): b (well-focused):
- Neutral .
- Fair representation, no bias:
- Fair representation, no bias:
- Stable.
- No edit wars nor disputed contents:
- No edit wars nor disputed contents:
- Illustrated appropriately by images.
- a b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Conclusion: No other issues. Good work, keep it up! Zia Khan 21:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: