Talk:Dennis Bergkamp/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Lemonade51 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 06:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll pick this up. First impression is that it looks pretty close to GA. It's well-referenced, it's comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail, and the prose is generally good. I'll go in for a more careful look - I think there will be some minor issues with the prose in spots - but first let me know you're ready to take questions.--Batard0 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

First take:

This generally looks good. Just a few suggestions to begin with to improve the prose:

  • The second sentence of the lead is structured somewhat confusingly. I would consider a slight rephrasing to something that flows better, for example: "He started as a wide midfielder and subsequently became a main striker, but he spent most of his career as a second striker." Or something like: "Originally a wide midfielder, he was moved to main striker and then to second striker, where he remained throughout his playing career."
Used the latter sentence.
  • I'm going through and making some minor edits for clarity and conciseness. Please have a look and discuss if you disagree with them.
No problems, thank you for thoroughly looking over the article's prose.
  • Is there a reason Non-Flying Dutchman is in bold in the lead? I think it ought to be in quotations instead, unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. I believe WP:Lead allows significant alternative titles to be bolded, but I think that only applies to the first sentence.--Batard0 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Will remove bolding, have placed quotation marks and removed citation as the origin of the nickname is expanded in the main body, which is cited.
  • The article's in good shape, really. I've made a thorough look through it, and I have cleaned up the prose in places. I didn't change anything in a significant way; I only fixed grammatical errors and edited out a few inessential words for conciseness's sake. I think if we can get the aforementioned things addressed we'll be good.--Batard0 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reviewing the article. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


After a few very minor adjustments, the article meets the GA criteria.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    The prose is clear and concise, and lacks grammatical and spelling errors.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
    Complies with basic MoS rules.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    Refs are all there, and are good.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    Citations are provided where needed.
    C. No original research:  
    No OR here.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    It covers all the major aspects.
    B. Focused:  
    It's focused without going into unnecessary detail.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
    No POV issues.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
    No edit wars.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    Images are all in commons.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    Images are appropriate for the article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    A well-written article that didn't need much improvement to meet the GA criteria.