Talk:Roy Lester/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• Seems a bit light. On reading through the article, I'd mention something more about his time at Maryland; perhaps the turnover of coaches before he took over, his previous applications or the reasons for his sacking. Or perhaps all three.

Y Expanded. Let me know if that is satisfactory.

Early life

• "Lester was named to the West Virginia 1940–1949 All-Time Team." Is this right? 1940–1949 and All-Time Team seemed to be a bit contradictory.

Y Fixed.

High school coach

• "He then moved on to Allegany High School in Cumberland, Maryland." Rather than use "then" it would be better to say which year.

Y I used "following year" to make it less redundant with repeated numerical years.

I agree about the overuse of years and dates. Nice change. Brad78 (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Maryland

• "In the season's second-to-last game," Would penultimate game not be better?

Y Changed.

• "Lester attributed Maryland's football woes to the turnover at head coach and lack of depth due to recruiting shortcomings." recruiting shortcomings doesn't quite sound right. How about recruitment shortcomings?

Y Changed.

Return to high school coaching

• "His combined high school coaching record was 260–72–3." Do you have a source for this?

Y Removed it, because I can't find a source. It looks like he won 260 games at Montgomery County schools alone though, which wouldn't include Walton or Allegany.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   On the whole, a good read and well written. Just those points above need addressing.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Just needs a reference for the record, as above

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:

   Brad78 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I made some changes to address your comments. Please let me know how that looks, and if you have any other concerns. Strikehold (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything's great now. Nice expansion on the lead. Now passes the GA criteria. Brad78 (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)