Talk:Ace Bailey Benefit Game/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Just a few of things I noticed in the article

• "During that sequence, Horner upended Shore as the later player rushed up the ice with a hard check" This sentence should be rearranged the way it's worded now makes it sound like the "hard check" is what was rushed up ice not what upended him. How about something like "During that sequence, Horner upended Shore with a hard check as the later player rushed up the ice"?
• I think neurosurgeons should have a link. I think it would be beneficial much like how manslaughter is linked later on.
• "Bailey held on, though his life hung in the balance for several days" I think that the sentence would be better served by moving it after the manslaughter sentence. The previous paragraph talks about how he wasn't expected to live and the Manslaughter case was if he didn't survive. Saying he lived between the two seems a bit disjointed. I think held on should also be changed to something like survived, or reworded and possibly merged with a later sentence like "Though his life hung in the balance for several days, Bailey held on and after several surgeries over the following days, doctors found reason to hope Bailey would survive."
• Is there a number of games Horner was suspended for? We have the date and assuming the suspension was the following day it something like 18 days but it would help the understanding if it was accompanied by a game total. Something along the line of he was suspended till Jan1 1934, which constituted X games or some such, or put the games in parenthesis (X games) since it might break up the flow of the sentence which includes Shore indef. suspension.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Links are good as is the inline citation. Information checks out from the internet links and I have no reason not to assume good faith on the off line sources.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Yes. I do have a question though. I see in the picture that the Leafs wore special jersey with Ace written on them. Not sure if there is much on that but its something that could additionally be mentioned. It has little barring on the actual game or events so I'm not going to make anything more of it. Just some food for thought.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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):

   All images contain proper licensing.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I've gone over the article a couple of times and I found just some minor things.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Prose concerns addressed. Mention of the special jerseys, if there is much, will likely be in the book I used for most of the article. I returned it to the library, but will get it back when I start on the Morenz and Siebert games. I'll see what is available, though I suspect the only thing said is "they wore special jerseys". Thanks for the review! Resolute 00:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

that's kind of what I would expect for the jerseys like I said no big deal. My thinking was that until I saw the picture I envisioned the Leafs in their usual uniforms and mention that they wore something different might be a nice addition. the information's not important and I would hate to see it just kind of jammed in there because I brought it up. Like I said just some food for thought no real concern either way.

Everything looks great! Excellent work as always, keep up the good work.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)