Talk:Angie Ballard/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 11:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Will start the review tomorrow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. 99of9 (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I know that these articles can be hard to assemble from a patchwork of sources
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Ballard has held athletics scholarships at the Australian Institute of Sport (1999–2001), You should say "held" rather than "has held", and use "from 1999 to 2001" rather than a range.
 * also is used twice in the last sentences of the lead
 * ✅ 99of9 (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * also is used twice in the last sentences of the lead
 * ✅ 99of9 (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Sources are okay
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * All the web sources require an access date, but it is missing from 1, 10 and 29
 * These should all be in the same format (I would prefer "23 April 2012" form but its up to you)
 * ✅ 99of9 (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ 99of9 (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Early in her athletics career, Ballard and Louise Sauvage had the same coach Any idea who that was?
 * ✅ Good idea. I found out it was Dawes too, which simplifies the sentence. Also added an extra cite about Sauvage as coach. --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Early in her athletics career, Ballard and Louise Sauvage had the same coach Any idea who that was?
 * ✅ Good idea. I found out it was Dawes too, which simplifies the sentence. Also added an extra cite about Sauvage as coach. --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * Appropriately tagged
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: