Talk:Jarome Iginla/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the Junior career section, "1994–95 was Iginla's first full season in the WHL", the start of the sentence might have to be re-written. In the NHL career section, what do you mean with this ---> "He recorded his first NHL point in his first game by assisting on a Theoren Fleury goal"? In the Captaincy section, this sentence ---> "Iginla was named a Hart Trophy finalist for the third time, but again failed to win the award", needs to be re-written. Do the same for this ---> "Canada failed to medal, however, as they were upset by the Russians in the quarter-finals" in the International play section.
    Rewrote all.
    Check.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the lead, it would be best if "2003-04 season" was linked once, per here. In the Junior section, it would be best if "Western Hockey League" was followed by ---> (WHL), I mean, I know what it means, but how 'bout your reader. In the Captaincy section, it would be best if "Theoren Fleury" was linked once. In the Off the ice section, "Jarome Iginla Hockey School" is not supposed to be italicize, per here.
    Fixed 2003-04, fixed the lack of (WHL) [I had thought I did that in a previous instance, guess not], corrected linking on Fleury and de-italicized Jarome's hockey school.
    Check.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Reference 59 is a dead link.
    LMAO! On the dead link, would you believe that the WHL literally redesigned it's website today? Had you reviewed the article yesterday, it would have been fine. I have changed the url to reflect the article's new location.
    That is hilarious. Man, I start the year with this happening, I will never forget this article. ;)
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    Does Reference 5 cover all this ---> "Iginla played three years with the Kamloops Blazers of the Western Hockey League. As a 16-year-old in 1993–94, he played 48 games, recording six goals and 29 points before playing an additional 19 in the WHL playoffs as the Blazers captured the league title as well as the 1994 Memorial Cup, Canada's national junior championship"?
    Everything but his statistical results. I've added a separate source for those, as well as in the second paragraph of that section.
    Check.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the quick review. I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thanks! Resolute 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Resolute for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Appreciate the quick and thorough review. Resolute 16:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]