Talk:Jack Le Goff/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 18:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall, no real problems with this article, just a few minor prose/MOS issues. I will pass once these issues are cleared up.

• Is it le Goff or Le Goff?

• All of the sources refer to him as "Le Goff", so I have moved the article to the correct title. I think the article is internally consistent, but please let me know if I missed any. - DB

• Seems fine now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• "He coached the team to multiple international championships, winning 18 international medals, including several Olympic medals": repetition of medals.

• Reworded. - DB

• "Le Goff is known for having a large impact": Not too sure about "large" impact.

• I'm not sure if your issue is with the word itself or the idea itself? If the former, I can reword if necessary. If the latter, he was basically the American eventing coach - everyone wanted to ride with him, attending his clinics was a huge deal and the majority of American international-level eventing riders today point to him as an influence. - DB

• My issue was the word does not seem quite right. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Le Goff served in the French Army and competed for France": Perhaps specify here what he competed in?

• Done. - DB

• "he acted as a consultant for finding new riders": Not sure this quite makes sense. For whom was he acting as a consultant? Maybe "He acted as a consultant for X, finding new riders".

• Done. - DB

• "Born in 1931, Le Goff's father was a French cavalry officer. He began riding early…" This reads like his father began riding early.

• Changed to "Jack began riding early...", although I'm not sure if this violates the general rule against referring to the article's subject by their first name. - DB

• I've always assumed it is fine in this instance. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• "As part of the French Army": Possibly "As a French soldier"?

• Done. - DB

• "he finished twenty-third individually": Should this be 23rd?

• Probably technically, but then it would go against consistency, as all of the other medal numbers (sixth, eighth, etc.) are spelled out. Thoughts? - DB

• My preference would be for 23rd, but I can see the argument for spelling it out. I'll leave that one up to you. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• "His teams earned eighteen international medals in all": Should this be 18?

• Done. - DB

• "During his time as coach, Le Goff had complete control over the U.S. eventing team, including which horses and riders trained and competed and which riders rode which horses.": A few too many "and"s here.

• Reworded. - DB

• "some equine historians posit that Le Goff's abilities in this area were what took the U.S. team to numerous medals over his term as coach": Which historians? Also, maybe rephrase as "Le Goff's abilities in this area took the U.S. teams to numerous medals while he was coach"?

• Rephrased as suggested...it's obviously a fact that he coached one of the most successful teams in history, so don't think we need the weasel wording of "historians posit". - DB

• "he has been called "one of the greatest coaches in three-day-eventing history"": Called by who?

• Tweaked to add name. - DB

• A few too many sentences starting with "he served".

• Changed one. I think there's only one left. - DB

• "part time": Should this be part-time?

• Done. - DB

• "three day eventing judge": three day or Three-Day?

• Three-day. Now fixed. - DB

• "The 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s have been called the U.S.'s "golden age of equestrian sports"": Called by who?

• Reworded. - DB

• Spot checks of sources revealed no problems. No problems with dablinks or external links.

I will place the article on hold for now, but I don't foresee any problems. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarastro, thank you very much for the comments! I apologize for not responding sooner to this - I haven't been online much the past couple of days, due to some RL stuff. I should be able to get to these comments tonight or, at the very latest, tomorrow morning. Thanks again for the review, Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I have now addressed all of the above, although I had minor questions on a couple of things. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, just the one remaining point about "large impact" but I don't think it's worth keeping it on hold for that as it was not a big issue. So I am passing now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)