Talk:Steffen Peters/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Dana boomer in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 16:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Comments

  • Where is his birth date referenced?
  • Reference #1 in the Personal life section, directly after the sentence that states this information. - DB
  • " in the sport of " not sure you need "the sport of".
  • "who competes" followed by "he competes". Ok, so it's not FAC but repetitive prose is repetitive.
  • I'm not sure but I thought US convention these days on "Peters'" would be "Peters's".
  • Really? I was always taught "Peters'". After taking a quick look, the style guides appear to disagree and be completely inconsistent on this issue - some say use the extra "s", some say don't. If you don't have a major problem with it, I'd prefer to leave it was it is. - DB
  • "he was unable to have his citizenship papers processed in time to " -> "however his citizenship papers were not processed in time"
  • "and so was not a member of the team in Barcelona" -> "and so did not compete in Barcelona" (just trying to tighten this prose a little).
  • What's a "top horse"?
  • "for the 2008 Summer Olympics.[10] In individual dressage competition at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing," repetitive and badly linked.
  • I'm not sure exactly what you were going for here, but I've made some tweaks to the wording and linking. - DB
  • " of the prestigious German" POV creeping in here?
  • I don't think so... This is a huge international competition, and of huge importance. It's not the Olympics or World Equestrian Games, but it's not a backyard show either. - DB
  • Check refs for WP:DASH and ensure all available fields are used (like accessdate.
  • I think I've addressed the dash issues, and as far as I know all necessary fields are used for the references. Access dates are not needed for print journal articles where the link is provided as a courtesy. - DB

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the review, TRM. These comments look fairly easy to address, and I should have a chance to do so this evening. Dana boomer (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
No worries, indeed they are mainly trivial. Let me know when you're ready for a re-review. Best, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK, a bit late, but I think I've addressed everything above. I've left comments where I had comments/clarifications, and otherwise just addressed your comments without leaving a response. Please let me know if you see further work that needs to be done. Thanks again for the review, Dana boomer (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Checklist

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
    Some MOS issues as noted above.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. 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:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

On hold pending the comments made above. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply