Talk:Quinn Hughes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 16:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am happy to start reviewing this article for GA status. I will leave some general comments / questions that I notice during my review and then after we have any issue hammered out, finalize the review. Canada Hky (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial notes

Nice article about a top prospect, and timely with the WJHC going on right now. Here are a few general comments that I noticed on an initial read through.

The lead is a bit short considering the overall length of the article.

Check that abbreviations used later in the article are defined on their first usage, particularly for leagues (OHL, etc).

Some of the text is a bit heavy on jargon, and could be cleaned up to be a bit more neutral. Examples "stationed" to describe a coaching position seems a bit off, "first rounder".

Sentence structure is a little repetitive, with lots of sentences starting with "Hughes", which is tough to avoid in a short bio, but makes it hard to read. Also, sentences like "During the 2017–18 season, in which Hughes was the youngest NCAA male ice hockey player, Hughes recorded five goals and 24 assists in 37 games." need to be cleaned up a bit.

The paragraphs are short and choppy in several sections, particularly the international section.

There is considerable overlap between the early playing career section and the personal life section. Perhaps consider adding a header about "Early career / minor hockey" or something similar. There are quite a few hockey GA's to model after.

A quick check of the references doesn't identify any major issues - all appear appropriate and reliable. I will check for formatting later during the review. Canada Hky (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Canada Hky. I first want to thank you for starting this GA review. I believe I have addressed your initial issues. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to those points. Canada Hky (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

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

It is reasonably well written. Thank you for the prose changes above - I think this article meets GA criteria for prose now.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable. No issues here. Informationis accurately presented, sources are reliable and appropriately referenced. References are correctly and consistently formatted. Spot check did not show any copyvio issues.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy. No issues here, the article accurately reflects Hughes' career and potential.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable. No issues here.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. An image is present, and appropriately licensed.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Congratulations! It is always enjoyable to work to improve an article with an engaged and responsive editor. Canada Hky (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]