Talk:J. R. Celski/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria
No issues here, so I will continue with a full review. Canada Hky (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Good read about a young athlete who came onto the scene in a big way at the recent Olympics. There's a few issues that will need to get hammered out here, but I think this can be a GA with some work.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Some issues here -
 * Pretty much all the event sections read the same 'In his first event.... in his second event....' There is also a tendency to summarize the event, and then go into detail - they are redundant, I would take the summary out, or move it to the end of the paragraph and greatly simplify it.

Lead is now expanded.138.162.140.53 (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC) :MOS - the medal tables need work. They should be arranged chronologically, rather than by medal based on the other Olympic GA's I have scanned. Its confusing as is. ::The documentation I am looking at says "For competitors who have competed in the same sport for the same country, the templates should be ordered Country, Sport, Competition1, Award, Competition2, Award and so on." As in - 2009 World Championships followed by those medals, etc. That would also involve a swap of the country and the event. Canada Hky (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tweaked some of the paragraphs.Philipmj24 (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead is expanded.Philipmj24 (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Template:MedalTableTop/doc doesn't really say if medals need to be arranged chronologically unless I'm missing something. If you look at Apolo Ohno (a GA), his medals are arranged by gold, silver, and bronze.  Which is the way it should be.  What is so confusing about it? What other Olympic GA's are you looking at?Philipmj24 (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I swapped the country and event. The medal table is in that order (Country, Sport, Competition1, Award, Competition2, Award).  However, we don't have any further guidance.  You are saying the medals should be arranged chronologically and I think the medals should be arranged by gold, silver, and bronze order.  I used Apolo Ohno as a guide and his medals are gold, silver, and bronze order.  I'm guessing by "Competition1", you believe it means his first competition he competed in but I don't interpret it that way.  That would mean his 2006 World Junior Medal would be above his Olympic medal.  Do you agree with that? Also, could you show me an example article by what you mean so there is no confusion.  Perhaps, we should have a neutral third party sort this out.  Thanks again for reviewing this article, I really appreciate it.Philipmj24 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I still like the way it is organized as a hierarchy, with the Olympics on top, followed by the World Championships (as the Olympics are the biggest event). I just mean that under the heading 'World Championships', they should be chronological (either ascending or descending) ie: all of 2010 followed by all of 2009 or vice versa. Canada Hky (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, my main concern was the hierarchy organization. But now that you cleared that up, I've organized the medals in date order. Philipmj24 (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

#:: His skating career is covered quite well, as is his personal life (once properly referenced), one thing to add might be an expansion on his injury (how long he was out, etc) - it was covered extensively during the Olympics, and could use a sentence or two more in this article. #:: There's a fair bit to address there, but I think it is doable. I am going to put this on hold for improvements.Canada Hky (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * More references are needed, especially for the personal life section, as a BLP this needs to be properly cited.
 * I've added additional references.Philipmj24 (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Done.Philipmj24 (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No problems here.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * All good as well.
 * 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):
 * Not applicable, there were lots of photographers at the Olympics posting on Flickr, it might be worthwhile to search there for photos.
 * I've checked Flickr and found nothing. I wish there was a picture of him I could use.Philipmj24 (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Everything has been addressed - congrats on the good article!Canada Hky (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)