Talk:Tommy James (American football)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tommy James (American football)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 18:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say thanks for picking this up and that I'm here and ready to address any issues and answer any queries. --Batard0 (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "1950s. James was born" -> "1950s. He was born"
  • " he starred as a back" not sure on the neutrality of saying "starred".
  • "he followed Brown to Ohio State, where he played as" second "he", strictly speaking it's unclear whether it's James or Brown you're referring to here.
    • Rephrased to eliminate the second use of "he." --Batard0 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He went to grammar" He attended?
  • Consider linking grammar school.
  • Consider linking touchdown. I know it's obvious to you but it's not obvious to all international readers.
  • I would expect win-loss to use an en-dash, just like the record itself does!
  • "James had an interception" do you mean he "made" one or "suffered" one?
  • "as he got older" not keen on this phrase, perhaps "as an older player" or something?
  • What does "on waivers" mean?
    • It means you allow other teams to employ him on the same contractual terms as you signed him on. If a player "clears waivers" it means no team wanted to pick up the contract, and at that point he's free to make a new contract with any team. I linked it and briefly described it. --Batard0 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17 title could use an en-dash.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria[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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Just the comments above to be addressed regarding prose improvement.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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:

A few minor prose issues, otherwise no problems here, I'll place it on hold for a week until I'm notified that the article has been updated. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • All issues above are addressed, I believe, but I'm happy to make any additional adjustments. Thanks, and this certainly makes the article better. --Batard0 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]