Talk:Kevin Bieksa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:26, 2 April 2010 (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 Junior and university section, "Bieksa was given his first of two consecutive honourable mentions as a CCHA All-Academic, was chosen by Falcons fans as the recipient of the W. G. Grinder's Grinder Award", "was chosen" doesn't flow well with the start of this sentence, maybe re-writing might help. In the Vancouver Canucks section, "After battling with forward Vern Fiddler against the boards", what do you mean with "boards"? Do you mean the glass? Same section, what do you mean with "he delivered a check"?
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Junior and university section, it would be best if "National Collegiate Athletic Association" was followed by ---> (NCAA), I mean, I know what it means, but how 'bout your reader. In the Playing style section, please link "Willie Mitchell" to its correspondence article, as at the moment it stands out as a disambiguation.
Check.
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:

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:

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:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review. I addressed the above concerns as best I could. Let me know if there's anything I can do better. Cheers. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome for it, and I believe you've addressed my queries. Keep up the good work with these hockey articles, Orlandkurtenbach. :) Anyways, thank you 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) 01:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]