Talk:Terrence Cody/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –Grondemar 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 Working Will aim to complete this review in the next couple of days. –Grondemar 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Some early comments—I'm still in process of reviewing the article:

• You might want to better center the infobox picture of Cody; he's a bit shifted to the left.

  Note this is minor and won't hold up GA status. –Grondemar 04:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• The WP:LEAD needs expansion to cover the full article, perhaps to two paragraphs. A third can be added when Cody gets sufficient NFL experience.
• I added tags where I thought a citation was needed. Please address.
• The "Alabama" section is somewhat dense. Would it make sense to create "2008" and "2009" subheadings?

Thanks. –Grondemar 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have completed my review; in addition to the above, while I copyedited the article, I think the prose needs work. Parts of the article repeat between sections, such as the Mike Mayock quote on the Senior Bowl, and many other parts just don't flow well. Please review and attempt to improve. Also, while it certainly isn't a requirement, you might want to look into list-defined references: I have found using them makes it far easier to copyedit the prose.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Could you please give me an example from the article? --bender235 (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article will be on hold for seven days waiting for improvements.

Thanks. –Grondemar 04:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please wait a little longer than 7 days. I'll take care of this article next week. --bender235 (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, no rush. Thanks for letting me know. –Grondemar 14:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've re-revied the revised article, made a couple of copyedited, and decided that it now meets the GA criteria. Therefore, I am passing this article's GAN. Great work! –Grondemar 03:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)