Talk:Ed Konopasek/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 15:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this one. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:47, 13 October 2023 (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:
· · ·

Comments

• I archived the reference links.
• Link scout team.
• NFLPA should be spelled out the first time its used.
• Ref spot check: #3, 6, 8, 13, 17

Looks good, putting on hold. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Looks good, putting on hold. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Gonzo fan2007: Issues addressed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Looks good, passing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.