Talk:Remy Hamilton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Strikehold (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Reasonably well written, but I have made some copyedits which I think improve readability (see below)

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Exceptionally well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   N/A

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   N/A

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General comments

I did a light copyedit. Here were some of the main things I changed:

• Adding commas to leading dependent clauses (e.g. "At Michigan, he set...")

• Changing passive voice to active voice (e.g. "...he was named Sun-Sentinel Offensive Player of the Year..." -> "...the Sun-Sentinel named him Offensive Player of the Year...").

• Added links to some terms that might be unfamiliar to a layman or foreign reader (e.g. icing the kicker).

• Added non-breaking spaces after numbers of things (e.g. "63 career field goals"), but I don't think this is required for a GA.

• Numbers that can either be written as a single word or that are less than two digits should be written out as a word. Whichever rule of thumb is used, numbers like four and seven should be written out in most cases.

• Removed a few redundancies (e.g. "He was activated to replace the injured Jason Hanson who was suffering from a hamstring injury")

• Past perfect tense should be used sparingly, mostly when it is not clear from context that something occurred prior to something else.

If you disagree with any of my changes, please change them back and we can discuss. Aside from those minor issues, which I believe are now fixed, I think the article meets the GA criteria, and am passing it. Strikehold (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)