Talk:Eddie Hill/GA1

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


 * Lead
 * It seems long per WP:LEAD.
 * Either that or it needs a slight re-organisation. The first and third pars are (substantially) smaller in total than the second par itself.


 * Boats
 * "He broke seven bones, suffered eye injuries, and had a concusion." Should this just be "had concussion"?
 * "He broke seven bones, suffered eye injuries, and had a concusion.[11] His Texas A&M ring was torn off of his hand." I'd suggest merging the two sentences.
 * "His Texas A&M ring was torn off of his hand" What happened to the ring? What happened to his finger? Did he race boats again?


 * Return to drags
 * "1993 was the pinacle of Hill's career." Try not to start sentences with a number.


 * Personal life
 * "Eddie has a daughter named Sabrina and a son named Dustin." It says Eddie has... Is this to a previous marriage, or should it be "They have ..."
 * General
 * Numerals and units should be broken by non-breaking spaces per WP:MOSNUM, e.g. 5.39 seconds.
 * Make sure you put commas after introductory clauses, e.g. "In 1962, ..."

It's generally very good. So I'll put it on hold while you address the above points. Peanut4 (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead - Sounds like the problem with with the uneven length between the paragraphs. I added some information about the major halls of fame to the third paragraph to balance the lengths better, and I made major cuts from the second paragraph. Can you see any information in the second paragraph that should be removed to achieve a better balance?
 * Boats - Concussion was spelled wrong, so I spell checked the entire article. Otherwise "a concussion" is needed to keep the sentence parallel with verbs as the common link. If you change the form to "He had a concussion, broke seven bones, and suffered eye injuries." or simplify to "He had a concussion." - does that structure make sense? I believe it does. I'll merge the sentences - they make sense together. I don't know what happened to the ring. Since it happened in a lake, I assume it went down into the lake. I assume his finger is okay. He did not race boats again "Hill quit boat racing in October 1984 after a crash", and I anticipate that the reader would guess this because he spent 5 days in the hospital and a year to fully recover, yet he was drag racing on land in the following season. October is the end of a racing season in the U.S.
 * Personal life - Eddie had at least one previous marriage. I was unable to find any reliably-sourced information on this wife(s), so I wrote it neutral by not addressing it.
 * Numerals/no breakable space - good point. I also see a problem that there should be a hyphen between numbers and their unit when it is used as an adjective (from a comment from a recent failed FAC on Alan Kulwicki). I know about the commas in introductory clauses, so I'll proofread.  Royal broil  03:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I addressed the issue with starting a sentence with a number (Return to drags). I proofread the article for introductory clause issues and (sadly) found many which I fixed. I went through the entire article for the non-breakable spaces issue and I changed some to dashes since the numbers were used as an adjective. There appears to be a problem with the convert template related to converting miles per hour to kilometers per hour specific to the adjective form, so I started a thread on the convert template's talk page. I think everything has been addressed, pending your thoughts on how to deal with the lead imbalance.  Royal broil  14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead certainly needs trimming down. The best bet is to half the size of the second paragraph. I'm sure you know which details are more relevant than the rest far more than me. Peanut4 (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've cut content to the bone. Each part of his career is not much more than a sentence. Any less detail will skips parts of his career. Some people just had a complicated career! I eliminated the third paragraph by moving some into the first paragraph and some into its own new paragraph on innovations.  Royal broil  03:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Meets all the GA criteria. Well done.

If you want to push this article on further, I would try and address a couple of the points above, i.e. what happened to the ring and finger, and clarify the children. The new "innovations" section will also need expanding, and I think more details generally may be needed. Make sure the lead also sums up the article per WP:LEAD.

Overall though, well done, it's a good read, and good luck with future improvements. Peanut4 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

On the Hill gang
The following was an unofficial peer review, not a Good Article reassessment.  Royal broil  04:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A few points: Except for these, a check for other potential broken xt links, & some minor cleanup of the language, this is looking pretty good. (Now, will somebody please put back Hirohata Merc, {done, thank you!} or create Ala Kart? ;D)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  05:48 & 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The NHRA #14 source link appears broken.
 * 2) The lead could be trimmed a bit; it seems to repeat itself some.
 * 3) Can I suggest "suffered # broken bones, a concussion, & eye injuries"?
 * 4) "dragster" is a bit overused, & appears to be used incorrectly. It appears it was a hot rod rather than dragster, seeing it was driven to the track. OTOH, if it was trailered, which could be... It's not really clear, & his 2d car clearly was trailered, tho that should be clarified, too...
 * 5) Can it be said which class(es) he was entered in at the time? It appears he was running gas diggers all along (before he went to Top Fuel), but it would be good to know; could be they were bodied gassers at first, or Modifieds.
 * Please review the source and edit as needed, I've never understood this terminology.
 * 1) I'd say "entered his first event", rather than "first race occurred"...
 * 2) It risks being called "unencyclopedic", but traditional usage is to call them "passes", so he set low e.t. with a 9.93 pass. (Pretty good for 1958.)
 * 3) A 9.25 pass is a real improvement, & a pretty quick pass. Was that with the same Rocket? Or a new car? (I have trouble believing a T chassis could turn 9s without killing somebody.)
 * The source is unclear, so I couldn't do anything.
 * 1) Double Dragon. Again, what was the powerplant? By then, I'd expect a 392 (like in the '66 digger shown).
 * The source doesn't say.
 * 1) Some clarification on duallies is in order. In actual comp, he'd use 'em, but in exhibitions, only 2 slicks, correct? (This being before NHRA banned duallies, & before tire tech improved to make them needless.)
 * The opposite, 2 duallies in open comp and 2 slicks in NHRA. Is the article unclear? What do you suggestion to cleanup?  Royal broil 
 * 1) On the 200mph club, some sharpening: The Greek ran the first 200, Eddie turned a 202.7, but neither could back it up, & Big ran 200 & backed it up to earn the first official 200.
 * That's what I thought it says, please edit so that you read it to say what you said.
 * 1) I changed "reverser failed", but I will bow to the more technically informed if there is, in fact, a separate mechanism, & not just a reverse gear on the 2-speed.