Talk:Andreas Tegström/GA1

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 03:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This seems a nice article. Review will proceed soon. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion
The only (potential) issue I find with this article is in the "Early life" section. Unless the only given reference for that section adduces the following, you will need a reference for ice hockey information. If the current reference covers this, the article passes. If it doesn't, you will need to verify this information. An early congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. The ice hockey information is supported by the only given reference in that section. Before you pass it, would you specifiy that the good article criteria has been met? Mentoz86 (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I will. The good article criteria has been met. Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested second opinion
On requested review, I think that QSL's pass of the article was sound. I'll add the caveat here that I'm not knowledgeable about precise language for association football, so it's possible there are some errors in that respect that I'm overlooking.

I found this phrase mildly confusing:
 * " while his team was in fourth place despite being dubbed in last place by every media outlet in Norway." -- do you mean something like "predicted to be in last place"? Or did Norwegian media actually misreport the place the team was in?

Another small quibble is that the names of print publications like Aftenposten should be italicized in the references. I removed a few repeat links and alphabetized the categories, but these aren't related to the GA criteria, just some tiny polishes.

Will fill in the checklist now to see if I'm missing anything.

As a non-Norwegian-speaker, it's more difficult for me to evaluate 2b (reliable sources) and 3a (completeness), but doublechecking a few of these newspapers, they seem reliable, and the career overview appears reasonably complete. I know you're hoping for more feedback here, but I don't have that much to give; I think you did a solid job on this, and I hope it'll be the first of many Good Articles for you. Cheers, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)