Talk:Jesse Puljujärvi/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Poriman55 (talk · contribs) 11:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 19:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

First thing to do - I'll check that issues brought up in the first GA review have been addressed. After that I'll dive into the table below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Poriman55, can you confirm that you are around and available to make changes in response to comments? Thanks! Without that, it'll be tough to move forward. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Here! I will make changes if needed and I'm not busy. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 19:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Great! Have all the issues raised by the first GA review been addressed? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think so. It is possible that i have missed something, but I will correct the mistakes if something comes up. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 07:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! I have a few things going on right now, but should be able to complete the first run-through of the review by Sunday evening. My apologies for the delay. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I will fix the problem with the authors when I'm not busy. I beleive Iltalehti and Jatkoaika are reliable sources. Elite prospects is also widely accepted as a reliable source for statistics. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 18:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain a little more about each of these? Have there been prior discussions on Wikipedia about them? Widely accepted by whom? Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Elite Prospects used to be listed on the ice hockey wikiproject page as a reliable source, but the list has since been removed. Jatkoaika is written by volunteers, but many of them are also "real" journalists. It's hard to explain why Iltalehti is reliable, but in my experience it is similar to any other newspaper. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 20:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

And about Jatkoaika, even though it is written by volunteers, a normal person cant just write there like on wikipedia. You have to have a background as a writer. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 20:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	Iltalehti is apparently a tabloid. Would you regard them as reliable? The Oulun Kärpät link just goes to the team's home page, not anything specific. The 2016 Draft Prospect Rankings link is dead - please fix and add an archive link if possible. Is eliteprospects.com a reliable source? Is Jatkoaika a reliable source? Apparently it's written largely by volunteers. Many articles (such as #41, Jesse Puljujärven erikoinen leikkaus herätti huomiota Pohjois-Amerikassa) are missing author names - please add these for all missing. The championshockeyleague.com stats page is not linking correctly - it's showing 2021-22 stats now. Fix and add archive link. Is Yardbarker reliable? Seems to be a blog repository among other things. #75 (CBC news) is poorly formatted and needs fixing.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig picks up nothing egregious, hold for manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.