Talk:Jordan Kovacs/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –Grondemar 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Working Will complete this review in the next couple of days. –Grondemar 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

One initial comment—I haven't finished going through the article yet:

• Were there any star ratings or other recruiting details that could be listed similar to other recruit articles? Being a walk-on with only D-II offers, I understand he might not have been graded by the services. –Grondemar 13:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • School team bios would include them and he is not listed at Scout.com or Rivals.com.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

More comments:

• Under college career, the text jumps straight from Kovacs having a second knee surgery to being one of the most highly-regarded walk-ons in the country. I'd suggest adding something about the surgery being successful (I assume it was) and how he earned playing time in the offseason to fill the gap.
  • I noted that the surgery was successful, but do not understand the point about filling the gap.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• "That season he played free safety before being switched to strong safety." It would be better to indicate earlier that he made his first start as a free safety, and then indicate in which game he transitioned to strong safety.
  • I don't know which game(s) he played free safety. I have added all the detail I could find.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• It would be nice to have a picture of the subject, although of course that is not required for GA status.
  • In time, I will track one down.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I made several copyedits to the text; once the above issues are addressed, I'll be happy to pass this article as a Good Article.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This GAN is placed on hold pending resolution of the above issues.

Thank you. –Grondemar 04:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks very good; that was everything I was looking for. I will pass this GAN at this time. Congratulations! –Grondemar 12:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)