Talk:Ryan Lochte/GA1

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

Reviewer: –Grondemar 23:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Will aim to complete this review tonight. –Grondemar 23:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This in general looks good, if a little sparse. I have a few concerns that I'd like to see addressed before I pass this Good Article review:


 * The lead says Lochte is the holder of four world records, but the succession boxes imply he holds only three...
 * Usually the succession boxes focus on individual records, not team records. Lochte's fourth world record is the 4×200.  I don't know one swimmer that has a relay record in the succession boxes.68.5.214.41 (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "At the 2006 FINA Short Course World Championships in Shanghai, held just two weeks after the 2006 NCAA Championships..." Did Lochte participate in the NCAAs? If not, why is this relevant?
 * He did, which is found in his personal bio.Philipmj24 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Links such as Canada and Australia: is there a more appropriate swimming-focused article these links could point to? Otherwise, you might just want to remove them.
 * ✅ Think I got them all. I still kept the cities were a meet was held linked if that's okay.68.5.214.41 (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "The next day, Lochte competed in the 100-meter freestyle but withdrew after the semifinals..." Why?
 * I'm still searching for a definite answer. I'm guessing it was to conserve energy.Philipmj24 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the Internet Movie Database really a reliable source for biographical details?
 * ✅ Will remove.68.5.214.41 (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The college swimming information should be moved to its own section at the top, since it precedes the Olympic and other championship contests. Placing this at the front would enable the article to flow better.
 * But it doesn't precede the Olymic and other championships so it wouldn't make sense to put it at the top. It was in 2006.  Really only one sentence goes into detail about his most notable year, 2006.  The other info is a list of accomplishments.  I could move that one sentence if you want.68.5.214.41 (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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:
 * This nomination is placed on hold pending resolution of the above concerns.
 * 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:
 * This nomination is placed on hold pending resolution of the above concerns.
 * This nomination is placed on hold pending resolution of the above concerns.

Thank you. –Grondemar 02:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for forgetting about this review; the actions taken above have satisfied my concerns. I therefore will  pass this article as a Good Article.  Congratulations! –Grondemar 04:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)