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

Reviewer: Resolute ( talk · contribs) 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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):

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:

General

• References good
• Images good
• NPOV good
• Spotcheck revealed no issue with close paraphrasing

Another fine Canuck player article. The only concerns I had were very minor - a couple missing words and three dead links - both of which I fixed myself. I can see no reason not to pass this as a GA. Congrats! Reso lute 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply