Talk:Bob McCallister/GA1

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Bloom6132 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply


Comments

  • "head pro" is that "professional"?
  • "him to have a go at the" to try the
  • "member of the golf team" don't link golf at this point.
  • "several PGA Tour events" link PGA Tour here.
  • "on the Tour one" no need to capitalise, this isn't the full formal name.
  • "record of shooting a 62 " this means nothing to non-golf experts.
  • "on the Tour" see above.
  • "and pocketed" won.
  • "by five strokes" what is that?
  • Same meaning as "X# of shots" (e.g. "ahead by two shots" and "coming two shots short" later in the article). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • "35-foot" convert.
  • "21-foot" same.
  • What's a "sectional event"?
  • Why not use full dates in the results table?
  • Not essential but would be good to have row and col scopes per MOS:DTT in that results table.
  • Refs 3, 9, 12 are lacking publisher info.

That's all I have on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@The Rambling Man: thanks very much for the review! I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Could I also trouble you to hold off promotion for a few days? An editor from WP:GOLF reverted my edits adding full dates and scope rows per your comments above. I've since reverted him explaining that this was in response to GAN feedback and hope this doesn't descend into an edit war. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Okay, well Jimmymci234 should know that if the Golf project is against using row scopes and proper dates, then they are in the wrong. The project-wide guidelines supersede these parochial project "rules". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've reverted that using the rationale you gave (thanks for that). The editor I referring to above was actually Tewapack, who made the initial revert. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply