Talk:Milos Raonic/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 333-blue (talk · contribs) 10:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I am about to review this article soon. 333-blue 10:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I don't know what "[]" means, as no URLs are given.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Use Candian English, as per MOS:TIES. Milos Raonic is a Canadian.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Perfect!
	2b. 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).	It seems like that the article has a lot of reliable sources and correct citations. It looks pretty good.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very focussing on the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It looks good.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The history seems quite terrible, but almost pass, consider waiting for a while.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Waiting for a couple of days, mainly the history needs to be stabler.

Discussion and resolution of issues

Re: Canadian English

• I have fixed two non-Canadian spellings ("color"-->"colour"; "criticised" --> "criticized"). I've run through a spell-checker, and it didn't find any additional mistakes. If you notice others, please let me know and I will fix them too. I have also tagged the article as Canadian English to avoid future confusion. Saskoiler (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Now, it looks OK. 333-blue 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: I don't know what "[]" means, as no URLs are given.

• I am not sure what this comment is referring to. There are no instances of empty square brackets "[]" in the article. Could you please explain in more detail what issue you are seeing? Thanks. Saskoiler (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

...he reflected that the loss was "probably the most heartbroken [he has] felt...

In the sentence above: "he has". 333-blue 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And another one:

its "individuality and [because he] felt [he] could train more alone and on a ball machine with [his] dad".[19] Raonic

In the sentence above: "because he"/"he"/"his". 333-blue 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh! It is an accepted practice to minimally change the words of a quotation to ensure grammatical continuity within the article sentence. In the first example cited above, the original words spoken by Raonic were "Probably the most heartbroken I've felt on court." But, it would not read properly if the article said "he reflected that the loss was "probably the most heartbroken I've felt on court."" So, we use square brackets to make it clear that we've made a slight change: to replace "I've" with "[he has]". The meaning of the quotation is not altered, and the important words (heartbroken, felt on court) are preserved. The manual of style describes this briefly in the first couple sentences under the subheading "Original Wording" at MOS:QUOTE. Saskoiler (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh! I got it. Thank you very much for giving me this info. Cheers! 333-blue 08:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I will look at this article for a while to see if it becomes stabler. If it does, it will be passed. 333-blue 08:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It sure looks stabler, so it is passed. 333-blue 09:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)