Talk:Russ Christopher/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Cool article, I love reading about new stuff. :) I'll point out things as I go, and then we can work on getting this to GA status

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

A minor issue - is there anything about his type of heart surgery. Was it something he had played with and had corrected, potentially allowing a comeback, or was it just that he recovered well from surgery and thought he could play baseball again?
Height and weight are out of place in the lead, shouldn't they be in the infobox somewhere? The lead is a touch short for such an extensively researched article.
There is inconsistency in the dashes, notably in the early life section.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

First reference, couple questions.
- For online sources, accessdates are good, even when the original is a newspaper. If there is a url, its good to know when it was last available. If this policy is established somewhere, then never mind.
- And I have seen this both ways, so its a matter of discussion more than anything: "Fullerton, Jr, Hugh" vs. "Fullerton, Hugh Jr." I tend to use the second. Is there anything written down?

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Good coverage all around.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No issues
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No issues here
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):
Not applicable
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Not too much to do here, just some things to fix up and issues to clarify. I'll put this one on hold.

Thanks for the review, everything's been addressed. To clarify the points, on the condition, I believe it's the former; he wanted to get it on the off chance he could mount a comeback in baseball. On the height and weight, I normally do not include them, but given his thinness on top of the other health issues I felt like it warranted a mention (not unlike CC Sabathia inverted). As for Fullerton, I like the latter better, didn't realize I had it the first way, so that's fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good, I like the way you integrated the height/weight info into the lead now. Congrats on the Good Article! Canada Hky (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]