Talk:Scott Stevens/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Early life section, you need to make a consistency between the usage of "Scott" or "Stevens". Same section, "In fact, Stevens gave up an opportunity to tour Czechoslovakia with the Kitchener midget team in order to play Junior B hockey", remove "In fact", doesn't make sense to have that included; it seems like it was maybe taken from his bio. from ESPN or something. Same section, "older brother Geoff would later go on to be a scout for the Devils", do you mean the New Jersey Devils? If so, you might want to add a link. In the Early years in Washington section, there really needs to be a consistency with "In fact" and "In addition", its too repetitive. In the New Jersey section, the first paragraph (1991-1995), is a bit repetitive with "Stevens", might be a good idea to have a consistency. Same section (1991-1995), you might want to re-write this ---> "Stevens then famously turned to Wings forward Dino Ciccarelli", sentence due to "famously" and per here. In the 1996-1999 section, "though they would be eliminated in the playoffs once again by the arch-rival Rangers", the part 'arch-rival Rangers' doesn't make sense, this might need to be re-written. In the 2000-2004 section, this sentence might need to be re-written, "when he took a Pavel Kubina slapshot off the side of his head". Same section, "Stevens created a defining moment with a check, laying out Ducks star forward Paul Kariya in Game Six", "defining" needs to be replaced (see Peacock), as well as "star". In the Personal life section, "Scott is a fan of the outdoors, and spent his summers away from hockey at Lake Catchacoma" ---> "Stevens is a fan of the outdoors, and spent his summers away from hockey at Lake Catchacoma".- Check.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Controversy in St. Louis and International play sections, link "Canada Cup" and "Team Canada" to their correspondence articles. The quote in the Early years in Washington section uses {{cquote}} but according to WP:MOSQUOTE, {{blockquote}} should be used. Even that is supposed to be for quotes of 4 lines or more, but the quote on my monitor is less than 2 complete lines of text. Same section, you might want to link "penalty" to the hockey article, just a suggestion for your reader. In the Controversy in St. Louis section, "On the ice", is jargon. In the New Jersey Devils (1991-1995) section, you might want to link "Lou Lamoriello" once, per here. In the 2000-2004 section, link "Boston Bruins" once. In the Legacy section, italicize "Sporting News", per here.- Half-check.
- Check.
- Half-check.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- In the lead, this ---> "his powerful hits", sounds like POV. Same section, "where his solid defence and offensive ability helped the team make the playoffs for the first time" and "as a fierce competitor and a hard hitter", might need to be re-written. In the 2000-2004 section, "Stevens was once again denied the Norris Trophy", POV.
- Check.
- In the lead, this ---> "his powerful hits", sounds like POV. Same section, "where his solid defence and offensive ability helped the team make the playoffs for the first time" and "as a fierce competitor and a hard hitter", might need to be re-written. In the 2000-2004 section, "Stevens was once again denied the Norris Trophy", POV.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. I will be updating it based on your suggestions. --Sportskido8 (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)