Talk:Jabari Parker/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC) No deadlinks or disambigs. I'll start the substantive review in a few hours. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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):

   The only things I'd change:

   (1) In the lede, I think "before" is better than "prior to". It's more like people actually speak without being informal.

   Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

   (2) In "Sophomore year": is it "the USA Today" or just "USA Today"? I know most newspapers use the definite article, but it seems like I've heard USA Today without it.

   I could go either way. removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

   (3) In "Junior year": I'd spell out state names, not use postal abbreviations, but I don't think it contravenes the MoS either way.

   Spelled out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

   (4) The article isn't consistent in how dates are written -- some are day-month-year, others month-day-year

   I don't see any instances of this inconsistency in the notes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

   It turns out there was only one instance, caused by a template. I fixed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citations are plentiful.

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:

   No POV in evidence.

   In the last section "basketball training guru" seems an overly promotional description of Tim Grover. --He to Hecuba (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images, likely none available that aren't copyrighted.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, looks good to me. Passed. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)