Talk:David Molk/GA1

David Molk GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wizardman 16:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Overall this is a good article, though I found a couple issues:[reply]

He seems to at least have been looked at by many other colleges, passing glance or otherwise. Any notable looks should be mentioned. (ten total, not all necessarily need mention as he didn't seem to have interest in the other schools)
- This is not a subject that I commonly detail, but I have added something.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure how common it is to be looked at that many schools; from my research it seems like most have around five only, hence why I thought it may be useful. Wizardman 06:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The college section feels almost apologist, as it's focusing more on the injuries to Michigan rather than Molk's performance his freshmen year. Could it be modified to tweak the focus?
- Would you prefer that I remove "In the first five games, the team used four different starting offensive line combinations due to injuries.[25] For much of the season, Rodriguez' offense started six freshmen.[26] By the seventh game the line returned to full strength and used the opening day lineup.[27]"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's probably best, unless Molk was being moved around the offensive line, in which case that should be mentioned. Wizardman 06:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC
    - Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it on hold and pass upon fixing, since there's not too much to fix. Wizardman 16:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this page and will comment in a day or two.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now, so article passed. Wizardman 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]