Talk:Dennis Bergkamp/GA1

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

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 06:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll pick this up. First impression is that it looks pretty close to GA. It's well-referenced, it's comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail, and the prose is generally good. I'll go in for a more careful look - I think there will be some minor issues with the prose in spots - but first let me know you're ready to take questions.--Batard0 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

First take:

This generally looks good. Just a few suggestions to begin with to improve the prose:


 * The second sentence of the lead is structured somewhat confusingly. I would consider a slight rephrasing to something that flows better, for example: "He started as a wide midfielder and subsequently became a main striker, but he spent most of his career as a second striker." Or something like: "Originally a wide midfielder, he was moved to main striker and then to second striker, where he remained throughout his playing career."
 * Used the latter sentence.


 * I'm going through and making some minor edits for clarity and conciseness. Please have a look and discuss if you disagree with them.
 * No problems, thank you for thoroughly looking over the article's prose.


 * Is there a reason Non-Flying Dutchman is in bold in the lead? I think it ought to be in quotations instead, unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. I believe WP:Lead allows significant alternative titles to be bolded, but I think that only applies to the first sentence.--Batard0 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Will remove bolding, have placed quotation marks and removed citation as the origin of the nickname is expanded in the main body, which is cited.


 * The article's in good shape, really. I've made a thorough look through it, and I have cleaned up the prose in places. I didn't change anything in a significant way; I only fixed grammatical errors and edited out a few inessential words for conciseness's sake. I think if we can get the aforementioned things addressed we'll be good.--Batard0 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The images are all appropriate and in commons, and the refs look good too. Well done.--Batard0 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria After a few very minor adjustments, the article meets the GA criteria.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * The prose is clear and concise, and lacks grammatical and spelling errors.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Complies with basic MoS rules.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Refs are all there, and are good.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Citations are provided where needed.
 * C. No original research:
 * No OR here.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * It covers all the major aspects.
 * B. Focused:
 * It's focused without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No POV issues.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No edit wars.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are all in commons.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Images are appropriate for the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A well-written article that didn't need much improvement to meet the GA criteria.