Talk:Steffen Peters/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Checklist

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)