Talk:2009–10 Calgary Flames season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Regular season section, link "Dallas Stars" and "Colorado Avalanche" once.

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Why is the title in Ref. 9 italicized?

   Check.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not that much to do. If the above queries can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Both are now corrected. Not sure why that ref was italicized... it looked exactly the same as others. Converting to cite web resolved it though. Thanks! Resolute 01:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, they're resolved. I would like to apologize for not reviewing the article sooner, I just got busy, so I apologize for the delay. Anyways, thank you to Resolute for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate the review. Resolute 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The alternate captains in the infobox, haven't been completed. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, everyone who served as a regular alternate is listed. Resolute 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Figuring out who served which month is sorta too picky. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

that, and with Jokinen and Phaneuf traded, and Conroy and Langkow injured, even tracking by month would have been impossible. Resolute 21:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost as confusing as the Flames setup in 1990-91. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)