Talk:2019 Treviso Open

Latest comment: 4 years ago by MWright96 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 Treviso Open/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Going to review this article. MWright96 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

  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 (reference section):   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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

General

edit

Lead

edit

Tournament format

edit
  • "The event was held from 8 to 11 May for the men's event, and 9 to 12 May for the women's event." The source attacted to this text does not mention the exact dates and will need another citation to back it up
Added a primary source for both events with the official dates. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Prize fund

edit

Men's event

edit

Women's event

edit

References

edit

There are some issues in the article, some minor and some major. The minor issues concern the way the sentences are written and some instances of editorialising and the lack of an author that should be clearly stated in several references. One of the main issues concerns two statements in the article which are not backed up by the sources they are attacted to. Will put the review on hold. MWright96 (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

All looks pretty simple to me. Thanks for the fast review. The uncited parts are likely negligence on my part. I'll get to work now. Thanks MWright96! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
clearly not my best article, could have done with a copy-edit before nom. I've covered all of the above, MWright96. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Lee Vilenski: Had to swap out the source you added because it was duplicate of one that is already in the article. Nevertheless am happy with the changes and will promote the article to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply