Talk:Aaron Peirsol/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: KnowIG (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead get rid of the last paragraph. Rm the first sentence of it merge the rest into the paragraph above


 * ✅ 68.96.88.65 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No references for he and his relationship to Hayley and the feat they achieved in personal life. No references for the jobs of his parents either. No references for the confirmed names either.


 * Yes, there is. The very first reference address Peirsol and his sister (it's on the second page under "PERSONAL", then "Sibling(s)") and his parent's jobs (it's on the second page under "PERSONAL", then "Parents").  I'm not sure what you mean by "confirmed names", but I'm pretty sure it's in there. 68.96.88.65 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry wasn't aware of a second page on that ref. But with him and Hayley getting medels I think you need to state the year they did it in.


 * ✅ 68.96.88.65 (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

He also missed swimming the 100-meter backstroke at the Olympics by finishing 4th.[6] Not proper English plus do you really need this fact. Since he has already achieved


 * I will fix the grammar issue. Yes, I do think that fact is notable.  He is one of the greatest 100 back swimmers in history.  In the next two Olympics, Peirsol won gold in that event so I do think it's a fact worth keeping in the article.  What do you mean by "Since he has already achieved"? Just because he has won gold in that event doesn't mean we should omit his results at trials. 68.96.88.65 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant achieved as getting to the Games as a 17 year old is a big achievement in its own right and "missing" out in a strong field don't know. Depends on ones view.


 * I'm not sure what your point is but I'm guessing I've addressed your concern. 68.96.88.65 (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

While in Syndey, Peirsol was roomed with Michael Phelps, also a first-time Olympian. Trivial and unsourced


 * ✅ I actually found this out by an interview he did with Conan O'Brien. I thought it was interesting to have. 68.96.88.65 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Peirsol's time in the 200-meter backstroke was the second-fastest ever at the time behind Krayzelburg. This is a general note. At the time. Hmmm don't think so. Write world recorded second fastest ever. We can assume that it is not any more when he goes quicker etc


 * ✅ 68.96.88.65 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Peirsol also competed in 100-meter backstroke but did not advance past the semifinals.[13] Really need this included


 * ✅ Removed. 68.96.88.65 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In his first major competition of 2002, Peirsol won five medals (three gold, one silver, one bronze) at the 2002 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) in Moscow. In Moscow, he was a part of the American team that broke the world record in the 4×100-meter medley relay and he broke the 200-meter backstroke world record.[15][16] More refs needed for results


 * ✅ 68.96.88.65 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Two days later 2 times in a row for a sentence start


 * ✅ Fixed. 68.96.88.65 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we need an hour and a half later


 * ✅ Removed. 68.96.88.65 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

who did he Q for the 2003 WC. I could go on and on here. I think you get the drift. More refs needed and a CE or I will fail this in a week. KnowIG (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Who did he Q for the 2003 WC? Do you mean how? There were no trials for 2003, the team was picked off the results from 2002. More refs needed for what? What is a CE? Can you be more specific? Thanks. 68.96.88.65 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep I ment how. Probably best to write that in then, as I am no follower of American swimming and I would assume that there would be trials.

CE means copy editing.

2004 really strong section.

An initial disqualification alleged that Peirsol had made an illegal turn during the 200-meter backstroke race. Having been improperly entered, the disqualification was eventually overturned. Probably should be Peirsol was disqualified for an illegal turn during the race. The US (whatever the body is here I can't think of it) appealed and Peirsol was reinstated as the champion.

Last paragraph in 04 should be merged only one sentence

Short course I assume the second ref is for the first record

05 remove easily from easily won, dominating from dominating fashion

At the 2006 National Championships, the selection meet for the. Same opening as the previous section can you change it up

Maybe merge 06 and 07 under one heading, because of the trials

07 champs sudden description of what happened in the races. Same with one event at the Olympics

08 set last year two sentence in a row. have previous year or something

But Peirsol's world record in the 100-meter backstroke would stay in place after the final.[76] WTF moment. remove please

shattering his own. Huge margin yes. Shattering bit POV so don't know whether it should stay

the medal-awarding final. Clunky

Done it all now. Changes listed then we'll see if it passes. KnowIG (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking over I have read over the previous review, and addressed a few issues myself. I believe this article now meets the GA criteria. Canada Hky (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC) 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: ✅
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources: ✅
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: ✅
 * C. No original research: ✅
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects: ✅
 * B. Focused: ✅
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias: ✅
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc: ✅
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: {{aye}
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: ✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass ✅
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc: ✅
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: {{aye}
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: ✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass ✅
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: ✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass ✅
 * Pass or Fail: Pass ✅