Talk:Efren Reyes/GA1

Latest comment: 4 years ago by CR4ZE in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 04:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply


I'll have a look at this once my GAN closes (qpq). Thanks! — CR4ZE (TC) 04:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just a small update—I'll be looking at this within the next few days. Please {{ping}} me if I haven't got anything to you by Monday. — CR4ZE (TC) 12:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

As promised,

Lead
Pool Career
Personal life
Accolades
Major titles and achievements
Images
References
  • Looking good. Thank you for archiving.
  • Not familiar with this topic so I will have to trust that all cites are to RS.
  • Spot-checked #31: published in 2019 not 2020, so perhaps a hard reading of ATT would mean the article text needs to reflect this.
  • Spot-checked #35: can you please point me to a quote that supports "Reyes is known for his highly unorthodox cueing technique"? Couldn't find anything upon a quick read-through.
    • I've changed this to how creative he is. I'd like to add something about his use of Backhand English (or Carabao); which is why he looks like he's playing every shot wrong, but I could only find [1] that really described it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Also spot-checked #8, #45, #47, #48: AGF on others.
Out of scope

I always offer suggestions to improve the article beyond the GA scope. You may consider these during or after the review (or not at all).

  On hold for as long as needed. That's it for now. Thanks! — CR4ZE (TC) 04:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Thanks for tending to my comments, Lee Vilenski. Just some follow-up as I pass this. I meant shortening Billy Incardona's quote as some parts of it seem a little redundant, but I'll leave that up to you. The ref examples cited weren't necessarily a CITEKILL (non-policy) example, however they could be bundled. Note that except for material highly likely to be CHALLENGED, 1-2 refs to RS would be more than enough. Spot-checked a few refs (#35, #36, #67) again. I copy-edited a few things on my own but you may not like some of my changes, so feel free to change as you see fit. I don't see anything else that I would need to hold this up on, so:

Result

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Well done! — CR4ZE (TC) 02:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply