Talk:Ara Parseghian/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Having just reviewed another quality article by you, I figured I'd take care of this one, too. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks again for all your work on these, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it up. I'm here and am happy to answer any concerns and issues that might arise. --Batard0 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

This is a terrific article, and I almost promoted it immediately--but there's two minor points I wanted to try to clear up first. The third is simply a suggestion. Thanks again for your amazing work on these! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• "which remains the largest crowd ever to see a home game at Northwestern" -- unless you can find a more up-to-date source for this, this should be rewritten as something like "as of 2005, remained the largest..." per WP:REALTIME.
  • Fixed. --Batard0 (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• "he was troubled by his father's dislike of Catholics who had played a role in the Armenian deportations " -- this is a little unclear to me. Was he troubled that his father disliked Catholics? Or did he on some level share his father's dislike?
  • I tried to rephrase this, saying he recalled his father's dislike of Catholics rather than using "troubled by," which could be construed as implying he shared his father's dislike. This isn't at all clear from the source. It seems to be saying that he hesitated out of respect for his father and his father's beliefs. --Batard0 (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• This isn't necessary for GA, but you might consider further subdividing the Notre Dame section, which is (understandably) long. The 3-4 paras on the 1964 season would make a logical subsection, for example. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Good point. I added three subsections, which I hope makes it easier to process. --Batard0 (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
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).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Pass. An excellent article; I think it's ready for a run at FA if you're interested in that.

Just want to say thanks again for the review. It's much appreciated, and I'll certainly consider taking it to FA. --Batard0 (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. You seem to have a few more Browns-related articles at the top of the queue, so I may grab another later this week. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)