Talk:Field hockey pitch/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I will be your reviewer. Please allow a couple of days for me to post comments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria ?
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * See below
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * See below
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Good neutral handling of the criticism from India, which beggars belief
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Prose
 * this is not seen as a sustainable option I had to look this up in the source to find out what it was talking about. can you add a bit moire from the source to exoplain what is meant by "sustainable" here?


 * Comment
 * Having played elite hockey on a sand surface - ouch!
 * I also wasn't aware of the blue hockey pitch. The first time I ever saw one was in London 2012.


 * Source review
 * FN 25 - page number?
 * Frequent - publishers? access dates?

Some minor fixes and the article will be good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall


 * Hawkeye7, many thanks for taking the time to review this. I've clarified the prose and done other minor source fixes (diff). However, the frequent refs were not missing publishers so not sure what you meant there. Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  09:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great. Passing now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)