Jump to content

Talk:Spike Albrecht

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSpike Albrecht has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 18, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 4, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 17-point April 2013 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament championship game first half performance by Spike Albrecht was featured in The New York Times 2013 Year in review?

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Spike Albrecht. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FairyTailRocks (talk · contribs) 23:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail assessment
  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. -
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. -
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. -
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. -
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Noted some issues below
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Noted some issues below
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Good here.
2b. 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).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. I believe so
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Stayed on focused.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Noted some issues below
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No sign of edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All of the images are licensed under Creative Commons.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Good here.
7. Overall assessment. Not yet for now, fix some issues I have said and ping me when it's all done. Thanks! FairyTailRocks (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may start this week, and just give me a few days because I have an exam on Monday. Thanks! FairyTailRocks (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Early life
College career
Infobox
  • Minor issue on the image caption, Albrecht giving the three-point shot signal at the 2013 NCAA Tournament against Louisville during his memorable April 8 performance. to Albrecht giving the three-point shot signal at the 2013 NCAA Tournament against Louisville during his performance
  • Upon re-reading the article per my previous suggestions, it looks good, however, I will do one final check against the GA criteria.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Improved here
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I think we are OK here.
  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:
    Improved here.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Good.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Passed
  7. Overall: Congrats! You have promoted the article for GA!
    Pass/Fail: