Talk:Donald Brashear/GA1

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

After reading this article, I think its meets all of the criteria perfectly, and in the following I will explain why.

First, this article was well-written, spelled correctly, easy to read, etc. Second, it was accurate and had tons of sources (73 to be exact). Third, it was broad in its coverage. All of its details were necessary, and if someome wonders who Donald Brashear is, this is what they should read. Fourth, it was definitely neutral. Although I came away from the article with the opinion that Brashear is one of the meanest hockey players of all time, it was not because the writer tried to give that impression. Rather, it was because of the true information found in the article. Also, the section about Brashear's childhood answers the question about why Brashear was always fighting. Fifth, this article does not appear to be constantly changing due to an edit war. Last of all, it had images with appropriate captions. I think the editors did a great job, and I recommend, if this article meets the criteria for featured articles, that it be nominated.

Reviewer: Alexanderovechkinfan (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the review I really appreciate it. As for making it to FA status the reviewer from the Peer review thought it might have trouble since there was limited information on his personal life. However I might put it up for a second review and see if there is a fealing that it could go to Featured. Cheers--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)