Talk:Steffen Peters/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 16:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * Where is his birth date referenced?
 * Reference #1 in the Personal life section, directly after the sentence that states this information. - DB


 * " in the sport of " not sure you need "the sport of".
 * "who competes" followed by "he competes". Ok, so it's not FAC but repetitive prose is repetitive.
 * I'm not sure but I thought US convention these days on "Peters'" would be "Peters's".
 * Really? I was always taught "Peters'". After taking a quick look, the style guides appear to disagree and be completely inconsistent on this issue - some say use the extra "s", some say don't. If you don't have a major problem with it, I'd prefer to leave it was it is. - DB


 * "he was unable to have his citizenship papers processed in time to " -> "however his citizenship papers were not processed in time"
 * "and so was not a member of the team in Barcelona" -> "and so did not compete in Barcelona" (just trying to tighten this prose a little).
 * What's a "top horse"?
 * "for the 2008 Summer Olympics.[10] In individual dressage competition at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing," repetitive and badly linked.
 * I'm not sure exactly what you were going for here, but I've made some tweaks to the wording and linking. - DB


 * " of the prestigious German" POV creeping in here?
 * I don't think so... This is a huge international competition, and of huge importance. It's not the Olympics or World Equestrian Games, but it's not a backyard show either. - DB


 * Check refs for WP:DASH and ensure all available fields are used (like.
 * I think I've addressed the dash issues, and as far as I know all necessary fields are used for the references. Access dates are not needed for print journal articles where the link is provided as a courtesy. - DB

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review, TRM. These comments look fairly easy to address, and I should have a chance to do so this evening. Dana boomer (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, indeed they are mainly trivial. Let me know when you're ready for a re-review.  Best, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, a bit late, but I think I've addressed everything above. I've left comments where I had comments/clarifications, and otherwise just addressed your comments without leaving a response. Please let me know if you see further work that needs to be done. Thanks again for the review, Dana boomer (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Some MOS issues as noted above.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

On hold pending the comments made above. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)