Talk:Dennis Bergkamp/GA1

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

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 06:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this up. First impression is that it looks pretty close to GA. It's well-referenced, it's comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail, and the prose is generally good. I'll go in for a more careful look - I think there will be some minor issues with the prose in spots - but first let me know you're ready to take questions.--Batard0 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First take:

This generally looks good. Just a few suggestions to begin with to improve the prose:

• The second sentence of the lead is structured somewhat confusingly. I would consider a slight rephrasing to something that flows better, for example: "He started as a wide midfielder and subsequently became a main striker, but he spent most of his career as a second striker." Or something like: "Originally a wide midfielder, he was moved to main striker and then to second striker, where he remained throughout his playing career."

Used the latter sentence.

• I'm going through and making some minor edits for clarity and conciseness. Please have a look and discuss if you disagree with them.

No problems, thank you for thoroughly looking over the article's prose.

• Is there a reason Non-Flying Dutchman is in bold in the lead? I think it ought to be in quotations instead, unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. I believe WP:Lead allows significant alternative titles to be bolded, but I think that only applies to the first sentence.--Batard0 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will remove bolding, have placed quotation marks and removed citation as the origin of the nickname is expanded in the main body, which is cited.

• The article's in good shape, really. I've made a thorough look through it, and I have cleaned up the prose in places. I didn't change anything in a significant way; I only fixed grammatical errors and edited out a few inessential words for conciseness's sake. I think if we can get the aforementioned things addressed we'll be good.--Batard0 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The images are all appropriate and in commons, and the refs look good too. Well done.--Batard0 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a few very minor adjustments, the article meets the GA criteria.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose is clear and concise, and lacks grammatical and spelling errors.

   B.

   lists

   :

   Complies with basic MoS rules.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A.

   References to sources

   :

   Refs are all there, and are good.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Citations are provided where needed.

   C. No original research:

   No OR here.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   It covers all the major aspects.

   B. Focused:

   It's focused without going into unnecessary detail.

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No POV issues.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   Images are all in commons.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

   Images are appropriate for the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A well-written article that didn't need much improvement to meet the GA criteria.