Talk:Tim Breslin
Appearance
Tim Breslin 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 16, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after Tim Breslin's death the American Hockey League's Chicago Wolves created a team award in his honor? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tim Breslin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review; sorry you've had to wait so long for a reviewer. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]An initial pass shows no immediate issues. I did make some tweaks as I went for grammar and style; please double-check that I haven't inadvertently introduced any error, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Starting checklist below.
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. | Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | ||
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. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Thanks for this well-researched, well-written article. A clear pass. |
Archiving citations
[edit]I archived the page's non-Highbeam citations for future reference; they can be found below in case of dead links. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Sports and recreation good articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (sports and games) articles
- Low-importance biography (sports and games) articles
- Sports and games work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Chicago articles
- Unknown-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- GA-Class Ice Hockey articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs of ice hockey people
- WikiProject Ice Hockey biographical articles