GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JDOG555 (talk · contribs) 21:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be starting the review shorty JDOG555 (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comments[edit]

Just some quick comments, the repitive use of "he" is annoying  Done. I noticed some of your sentences are a couple words long and start with "he". The personal life section needs to be expanded. I'll give a full list of comments later JDOG555 (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced a bunch of the "he"s.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Okay here is my review, if I am off-base on any of these please tell me.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead[edit]

Disregard
The lead for this article is good only 2 things I would consider changing or removing Lead seems pretty good, can't seem anything wrong with it
Disregard
Unless you think it is misleading or POV it should remain, IMO. So much of the text describes the issues at Minnesota, that I can't see how you could summarize the article and not include at least that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Works for me JDOG555 (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard
This is also a summary of points in the text: 1.) expected NBA first rounder 2.) Big 12 Preseason Newcomeer of the Year. Considering the specific prose it is summarizing, is it still biased?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Works for me JDOG555 (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

High school[edit]

Is this really needed, I would get remove of it

  • I just can't see how it is really relevant, if you decide to keep it I would suggest changing the wording for "beefed up" JDOG555 (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College[edit]

What was the incident?

Disregard
  • Most sports bios are considered devoid of non-sports content. This helps us round out his personality for the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard

Personal[edit]

Who is his grandfather?

References[edit]

Disregard

Images[edit]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA PASS[edit]

Congratulations all of my issues have been addressed, your article is now a Good Article! JDOG555 (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.