GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 01:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:
General
Club career
Overall

Looking really good. Just some MOS issues to clean up with the references, and a clarification for his being a millionaire required. As such, I am placing the nomination on hold. Resolute 01:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Congrats on the GA. I'm always happy to see a nation's sporting legends get the quality articles they deserve. Regards, Resolute 04:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I hope reading this inspires you to help counter systemic bias, for example, by writing about the sporting legends of Asian/African countries (or even disability organisations, such as Pathlight School and MINDS). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]