Talk:Simona Halep/GA1

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Lee Vilenski in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 17:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures edit

  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -  Pass Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • It contains copyright infringements -  Pass Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -  Pass Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page.-  Pass Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Links edit

  • There are two links in the infobox, per WP:INFOBOXCITE could these be in prose? The one about the age is particularly bad as there are already cites about the age in prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Moved the "turned pro" one to the prose. The one for the age is really just for the whole infobox. There's no obvious place to put it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Refs look good Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Seems like a lot of External links, the iMDB profile seems like a lot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Prose edit

Lede edit

Main prose edit

The rest of the article looks very good, and well made/sourced. I will have to find out what the deal is with articles under pending changes reviews, as I've never come across one before. Placing on hold. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review, Lee Vilenski! I addressed everything above. The "world No. X" is a standard tennis format for writing out "world number xxxx". The pending changes thing is just a type of page protection (from many years ago; we probably don't need it any more). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'd just suggest either a note or a bracket commenting what No. # means. It should also be "no" in lowercase. Other than that, we're good to go. I have requested the removal of pending changes as it doesn't suit the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I added a note in this format: "No." where it says "No. 96 Angelique Kerber". I could add a few more of these, but I don't want to do it everywhere. The capitalization is correct (see for instance this article or virtually any other tennis article). Thanks for removing the protection. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
No worries. In that case, all seems fine for passing. Good job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notes & References edit

GA Review edit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   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):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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:  

Comments edit

  • Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definately not manditory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.