Talk:Smokers v Non-Smokers
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Cliftonian in topic GA Review
 | Smokers v Non-Smokers has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 12, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Smokers v Non-Smokers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Handled the ball
editAccording to this Cricinfo page, Scotton was not the first man to be out "handled the ball" in first-class cricket. Since an example from 1797 is quoted, when the first was probably depends on when you think first-class cricket started, but a pretty solid example from many years before Scotton is mentioned: this match from June 1857 in which James Grundy was so dismissed. Loganberry (Talk) 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
{{refimprove}} template
editIs there any reason for this? Doesn't the cited source verify all of the content? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Smokers v Non-Smokers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 11:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Oh, this does look like fun. I'll review this shortly. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
From first glance this looks pretty solid, and quite entertaining to boot. I'll make notes as I go through.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- All very well done.
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- No issues.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Very good. I tweaked one of the captions a little bit.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- A comfortable GA for sure. A fine article, an interesting bit of cricketing history and a great little read—very well done indeed. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- Bonus comments, for further improvement beyond GA:
- Is it recorded what inspired Walker to choose Smokers and Non-Smokers as the theme for the first game?
- Did the team selection in each game actually reflect who did and didn't smoke?
- Is it recorded who ultimately got the ball from the second game?
- Well done again. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)