Talk:Cody Hodgson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   "He was drafted 10th overall by the Vancouver Canucks in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft" ---> "He was drafted 10th overall by the National Hockey League (NHL) team, the Vancouver Canucks, in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft", just a suggestion, though, something like that should be there. In the third paragraph of the Playing career section, "general manager" should be "General Manager" as you do include the name of the person. If you didn't include the person's name, then yes "general manager" would be appropriate. Same section, "After being a healthy scratch in game four", "healthy scratch" is jargon.

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   You might want to have a consistency with "10th overall" and "seventeenth overall". Either go with the number ("10th"), or spell it out ("seventeenth"). In the International play section, "Although favored to win the tournament", "favored" should be "favoured", due to Canadian English spelling.

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   There's something wrong with the formatting of reference 3. Ref. 8 needs a Publisher. Ref. 34 needs a date and accessdate. Also, I ended up fixing some of the ref. settings for ya. ;)

   Check.

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and taken care of the above issues. Let me know if there's anything further that needs to be done. Otherwise, thanks for the double-review, including Jordan Eberle too! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome for both reviews, and everything is taken care of here. Thank you to Orlandkurtenbach for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) Also, sorry for my delay. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)