Talk:Curtis Glencross/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A really solid article. I have limited understanding of hockey but followed this easily. Just a few nitpicks.
 * "He improved his totals in each of his first three seasons in Calgary…" Totals of what?
 * "…had earned interest…" Makes him sound like a bank account. :)
 * "His 2006–07 season was split between four teams. Glencross began with the Pirates, but at mid-season earned his first call-up and made his NHL debut on January 13, 2007." Sorry, this one is nit-picky, but this is not supported by the following reference and is not really near enough to be supported by the other refs to his stats.
 * "his first goal that night, on Peter Budaj…" This loses me here; if Budai was the goaltender, should it not be "against Peter Budai"?
 * "…the Oilers did not make a contract offer as he became an unrestricted free agent." "As" is ambiguous. Does this mean they did not make an offer because he became a free agent or when he became a free agent?
 * "Glencross set new highs in games played (74), goals (13) and points (40)…" This reads as if he set new world/club records for games played. I assume it means personal records.
 * "He missed six games in December 2008 with a knee injury…" The ref states he was missing his fifth straight game. Where does the sixth game come from?
 * "blind-side hit": Link or explain.
 * "chose not to go to free agency": Reads like sporting journalese rather than encyclopaedic. "not to become a free agent"?
 * Career statistics needs a ref.
 * I always like a "style" or "technique" section, but I would not insist on it. I noticed a few technical comments in ref 12 if you really wanted something, but I imagine there is not too much about this side of his play.
 * Referencing looks excellent and spot-checks revealed no major problems.
 * Dablinks and external links fine.
 * One image, which checks out fine.

I'll place this on hold for the moment, but imagine it will be a quick pass. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I have addressed the wording suggestions.  Will be back later/tomorrow to deal with the three concerns over references.  Cheers! Resolute 23:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And finished. I don't think that an explicit reference is required for the stats table, as all three ELs are reliable sources showing the stats.  I can move one up as a general reference if you feel it is necessary, however.  Resolute 00:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My preference would be for an explicit reference, and I think that would be the case if this ever goes for FAC. However, I'm satisfied for the purposes of GA and there are several refs which back up the statistics, so I'm not going to insist on it. Everything else fine and so I'm passing now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)