Talk:Dave Sharma/GA1

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 03:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a couple of Featured List candidates, Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship. I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ  -US 03:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the featured list requirements at all, but I'll take a look at anything which jumps out at me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.


 * Peer review tool
 * No issues detected ✅


 * Copyright violations Tool
 * Not seeing anything that is actually a violation ✅


 * Disambiguation links
 * No issues detected ✅


 * External links
 * No issues detected ✅

Well Written

 * "Since May 2013 he has" does not need the comma
 * I think this has been done already?
 * "studying medicine he began working" should have a comma after the introduction so "studying medicine, he began working"
 * "in around 1999" can be simplified to "around 1999"
 * This part confuses me " (including as the and US President Barack Obama's visit to Australia in November 2011." not as well written as the rest of the article, please reword this.
 * ✅ Done, oops.
 * The "Africa Branch" section really does not have enough info in it to warrant it's own section, can you add some details or perhaps merge it with the previous section?
 * How's what I did? Can always merge it into another section if you think tha
 * The "Africa Branch" section really does not have enough info in it to warrant it's own section, can you add some details or perhaps merge it with the previous section?
 * How's what I did? Can always merge it into another section if you think tha

Sources/verifiable

 * All look reliable, correct format, consistent date format etc. when there is an author they're listed etc. It's all good ✅

Broad in coverage

 * It's a pretty short article, 606 words of "written prose" (excluding info boxes etc.) but it's not so short I would automatically fail it for not being broad enough.
 * Since the criteria is "broad" and not comprehensive this is broad enough ✅

Neutral

 * Yes, factual and straight forward ✅

Stable

 * Short article history, no issues jump out at me ✅

Illustrated / Images

 * No issues detected ✅

General

 * - So that's my complete review, pretty quick since it's a short article. I am going to put this on hold for 7 days to allow for improvements to be made. Let me know when you're ready for me to review again.  MPJ  -US 04:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've done everything you mentioned. Let me know if you notice anything else. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - I am okay with everything that was addressed, looking good. I am happy to pass this for Good Artice status.  MPJ  -US 20:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks !! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)