Frank Patrick (ice hockey) ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 2 March 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Frank Patrick (ice hockey) has been listed as one of the
Sports and recreation good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 15, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Harrias ( talk · contribs) 10:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I've had my eye on this one for a while. I take a look shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- 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);
- it contains no original research; and
- it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
I'll continue with a full prose review soon. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
1. Well-written:
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
3. Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Nice work, I'll stick this on hold to give you time to work on the fixes, but there's nothing major. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Frank Patrick (ice hockey) ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 2 March 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Frank Patrick (ice hockey) has been listed as one of the
Sports and recreation good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 15, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Harrias ( talk · contribs) 10:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I've had my eye on this one for a while. I take a look shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- 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);
- it contains no original research; and
- it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
I'll continue with a full prose review soon. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
1. Well-written:
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
3. Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Nice work, I'll stick this on hold to give you time to work on the fixes, but there's nothing major. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)