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
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