Talk:Theresa Goh/GA1

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


 * Lead
 * I know WP:LEAD suggests a lead of three or four paragraphs per the size of this article, but given quite a bit of the article is taken up by the "Medals" table. I would suggest still three paragraphs but trim down some of the information in the lead.
 * OK, fixed. See how that looks. — JackLee, 13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead is now perfect. Peanut4 (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sporting career
 * "2nd ASEAN ParaGames" Was this the official name with the use of 2nd? If not, it should be Second or second as per WP:MOSNUM. Ditto with the 3rd and 4th.
 * Comment: The convention appears to be to use "2nd", "3rd", etc., rather than "Second", "Third", etc. See the website of the 4th ASEAN ParaGames. — JackLee, 13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "In April, she participated in the US Paralympics Trials in Minneapolis." How come she competed in the US Paralympics Trials?
 * Comment: Good question. From the sources, it seems that you don't have to be American to take part in the US Paralympics Trials. I can't find anything specific which explains this, but perhaps they are international Paralympics trials held in the USA which are open to people of all nationalities to enable them to qualify for the Paralympic Games. — JackLee, 13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. If you can find any more info, bare this in mind to either add a footnote to explain this, or some additional text. Peanut4 (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Medals
 * How come some of the dates are just years or months & years?
 * Comment: I provide full dates where I can find them, and partial dates or just years when I can't. — JackLee, 13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's overall pretty good and I'll put it on hold for now. I will also give a fuller review of the lead when you've had chance to respond or make some changes. Peanut4 (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article. My responses are above. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Another well written GA from you. Meets the GA criteria. Would be good to get an image and bare in mind the one point above about the US trials. Good luck with any future expansion of the article. Peanut4 (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've e-mailed the Singapore Sports Council about an image; let's hope for a positive response. Anyway, thanks again for all your help! — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)