Talk:Mike Burns (cricketer)/GA1

(Redirected from Talk:Michael Burns (cricketer)/GA1)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Harrias in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 20:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Comments

  • "started his career with Cumberland" and "started his cricket career with Cumberland" in quick time in the lead.
  • "could bowl medium-pace" two different wikilinks without unlinked text between them can often be confusing, any chance of a reword?
  • Link "all-rounder" in the lead.
  • Also consider appropriate links for "average" in the lead for his batting and bowling averages.
  • Opening sentence probably needs to include that he's now a reserve umpire.
  • Add (ECB) after the first use of the expanded version so the next time you use the abbreviation it's clear to all.
  • "Early life and minor counties cricket" section, you have "Burns... " twice and "he..." eight times. Perhaps mix it up a little bit more.
  • Not sure if you've had GAs done before, but one thing I'd suggest (and I'm not GA expert) is to use the glossary of cricket terms for things we both take for granted, like runs, stumping, etc...
  • "who was the club's professional player" don't think you need "who was"
  • "He had more first team.." -> "Burns had..."
  • "His chances came particularly..." last bloke you mentioned was Piper...
  • "Wisden Cricketers Almanack" missing an apostrophe.
  • You link bowling average in the Move to Somerset section. So just a general note, link these terms wherever possible, and always first time round.
  • "Minor Counties" or "minor counties"?
  • Ref 14, apostrophe in the wrong place. Check others...

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA criteria

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):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Comments above apply here, nothing serious, but would make it a quality article (imho).
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  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:  

Minor comments, so placing the article on hold pending their resolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply