Talk:Russell Ebert/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Issues:


 * Some problems with missing references. These need to be supplied:
 * Fourth paragraph of "Port Adelaide (1968–1978)" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The rest of the players in "Port Adelaide non-playing coach (1986–1987)" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph of "South Australia coach (1996–1998)" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * First paragraph of "Playing style" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * First paragraph of "Media" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fifth paragraph of "Honours" - DoneThejoebloggsblog (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggest combing the short paragraphs in "Port Adelaide community programs" - DoneThejoebloggsblog (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Any progress? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * See above
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Article is very good. Will pass if the issues with referencing are resolved.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Article is very good. Will pass if the issues with referencing are resolved.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Article is very good. Will pass if the issues with referencing are resolved.