Talk:Bill Roe (cricketer)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bill Roe (cricketer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 18:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): 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. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:

Only a couple comments:

• "He achieved notability in 1881, when he made the highest score in cricket at the time." and "Roe gained cricketing fame in the summer of 1881..." seem to refer to the same thing. As the latter goes into more detail and explains Roe's notability, you can drop the first instance, as it doesn't need to be repeated, especially in the lead.
  • Cut this out of the first paragraph, and tweaked it in the second for clarity, how's that? Harrias ^talk 21:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• The latter half of the first paragraph in the "highest score in cricket" section has no citations, which considering it makes some important claims is necessary.
  • Just finding this – thanks for your patience! Harrias ^talk 21:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Other than those minor issues seems like it should be good. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good to me now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)