Talk:Leo Katalinas/GA1

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Gonzo fan2007 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 22:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


I'll review this one. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

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 (references):  
    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, 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

edit
  • I found it easier to just copyedit it myself. If you disagree with any of the edits, just let me know.
  • nickname "Thor," the German god of thunder,, I'm thinking parenthesis would be better here
  • There are some references that don't have access-dates (the non-newspaper ones)
  • Spot check:
    • Ref 2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 17, 22, 25 all look good.
    • Ref 8: spelling error in sophomores

Nice work, putting on hold. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • @Gonzo fan2007: Thanks for the review and copyedits - I was in somewhat of a rush writing this so my grammar may not have been the best. I've fixed the other issues but I noticed you made a mistake in one of your copyedits: you changed the sentence He was the second-youngest of four brothers who played football; both his brothers Ed and Joe each played at Georgetown, the latter also played professionally, and John through at least high school to He was the second-youngest of four brothers who played football; both of his brothers—Ed and Joe—each played at Georgetown. The latter also played professionally and the former through at least high school but that makes the sentence incorrect; I may have been a bit sloppy in writing that part, but what I meant to communicate in that sentence was that Leo was the second-youngest of four brothers, with Ed and Joe both playing at Georgetown, Joe also playing professionally, and John, the youngest, playing through at least high school. Can you think of a good way to word it? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Maybe just elaborate it a bit? two of his brothers—Ed and Joe—each played at Georgetown, with Joe continuing on to play professionally. The youngest, John, played football at least through high school. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Gonzo fan2007: I like it. I changed the wording to your suggestion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Looks good, passing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.