Talk:Sigi Schmid/GA1

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

Reviewer: Big  Dom  10:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Just the couple of very minor points below.
 * 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):
 * A good amount of biographical info alongside the football.
 * 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):
 * Just the one image, no caption but it is in an infobox so that's OK.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Couple of comments below, but nothing serious enough to stop this being listed
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Couple of comments below, but nothing serious enough to stop this being listed


 * Comments
 * In the lead, "sixteen" should be "16"
 * I've never heard of "overtime" in association football, it's usually called extra time
 * Being from Britain, I have no idea what "a 9–12–9 record" means. Is it in the order win-draw-loss or win-loss-draw?
 * "maintain a residence" is a bit wordy, why not say that they "live" there?
 * In the stats table, why are there months for LA Galaxy but not the other teams?

Thank you for the review BigDom. A couple things:
 * 16 fixed
 * Overtime and extra time have a merge discussion going on so I'll wait for that to finish up. Overtime is the varient used over here and is used in each source but I could see adjusting it. I'm on the fence with this one.
 * Can just leave this one until the discussion has finished. Big  Dom  07:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The #-#-# confused me while researching the article since I am used to seeing it both ways. I did "322 wins, 63 losses, and 33 draws" in the lead and did not spell it out after. It obviously needs adjustment if it wasn't clear. Should every instance of records (there are a handful) be clarified? I could also just do the first instance down in the in the main body to clarify but not be repetitive?
 * It's just not a format that is used over here, so to make it clear I think that a short explanation the first time it's used would be best, e.g. "322–63–33 (wins–losses–draws)" or similar. Big  Dom  07:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the house in CA line altogether. I am not sure if he has moved up to WA for good or not. It also looks like that line is not in the source (official bio) anymore so he might have sold it. Not sure and really not that important.
 * Fair enough. Big  Dom  07:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Months are in the table for the Galaxy since he came in and was dismissed mid season. Does that make sense or should it be adjusted? Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I get it now. I've just made a couple of changes to the table as well. Big  Dom  07:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)