Talk:Ottawa Redblacks/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, am looking now. I will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A good template is an existing GA or FA on a similar subject. Hence we have those pesky Toronto Argonauts. Hence the first section should be prosified and called Name and colours and be written as a paragraph. (A Team Facts section as points is redundant as it duplicates info from the infobox) Also as it is recent, there is probably some discussion on how the name was chosen that can be included.

I'd add their home ground, owners and (maybe) star players to the lead.

All those tags in the Legislative and construction hurdles need a-fixin'

Thanks for your interest in reviewing this, Casliber. Unfortunately, now is a terrible time for me due to real-life stuff that is taking up a large percentage of my time. I'm going to have to withdraw this from GA consideration. I knew this would be at least somewhat of a project to get to GA, and I don't have the time for that project at the moment. Sorry for the false start! The other articles I've nominated are much closer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: - places needing references are marked.

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research: - doesn't appear to be but can't be answered until fully sourced.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: - just not sure about the licence on File:Ottawa-RedBlacks-wordmark-logo.jpg Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - sad to fail it, but I think it does need a bit of work. Take this as quasi-Peer Review feedback to go on with. I like team articles so ping me if/when renominated and I will be happy to review it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)