Talk:Miikka Kiprusoff/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Calgary Flames section, "Kiprusoff struggled to begin the 2006–07..." I believe there's a word missing after 2006–07, cause right now it reads very odd? In the International career section, this sentence ---> "He stated he will play for Finland at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, but only if he feels healthy and if he is the starting goaltender for the team" is outdated.

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the San Jose Sharks section, "He finished fourth in the league with a 2.48GAA" and "...and posting a 5.65GAA in that time" are spaces needed between 2.48/GAA and 5.65/GAA? Same thing with the latter in the following section and in the International career. Same section, San Jose Sharks, "...for a second round draft pick on November 16, 2003 after Calgary starter Roman Turek suffered an injury" ---> "...for a second round draft pick on November 16, 2003, after Calgary starter Roman Turek suffered an injury", commas after dates, if using MDY. In the Calgary Flames section, "...in a Flames uniform in a 1–0 win over the Wild on March 27, 2007 to break Dan Bouchard's franchise record" ---> "...in a Flames uniform in a 1–0 win over the Wild on March 27, 2007, to break Dan Bouchard's franchise record". Same section, "...He won his 200th career game on March 18, 2009 in a 2–1 victory" ---> "...He won his 200th career game on March 18, 2009, in a 2–1 victory".

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   In Reference 31, the "Toronto Sun" is supposed to be in the "work" format of the source, as it is a newspaper. Refs. 2, 54, 55, and 56 need accessdates There seems to be a problem with Ref. 47.

   Check.

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

All should be corrected now. I checked and found a couple of other dates where I missed the comma, and the dead reference has been replaced. Thanks! Resolute 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

They are, and you're very much welcome for the review, just doing my part. Thank you to Resolute for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)