Talk:Jabari Parker/GA1

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No deadlinks or disambigs. I'll start the substantive review in a few hours. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The only things I'd change:
 * (1) In the lede, I think "before" is better than "prior to". It's more like people actually speak without being informal.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (2) In "Sophomore year": is it "the USA Today" or just "USA Today"? I know most newspapers use the definite article, but it seems like I've heard USA Today without it.
 * I could go either way. removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (3) In "Junior year": I'd spell out state names, not use postal abbreviations, but I don't think it contravenes the MoS either way.
 * Spelled out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (4) The article isn't consistent in how dates are written -- some are day-month-year, others month-day-year
 * I don't see any instances of this inconsistency in the notes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It turns out there was only one instance, caused by a template. I fixed it.  --Coemgenus (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Citations are plentiful.
 * 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:
 * No POV in evidence.
 * In the last section "basketball training guru" seems an overly promotional description of Tim Grover. --He to Hecuba (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Seems stable.
 * 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):
 * No images, likely none available that aren't copyrighted.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, looks good to me. Passed.  --Coemgenus (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, looks good to me. Passed.  --Coemgenus (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)