GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Whiteguru ( talk · contribs) 08:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Starts Good Article Review Page. Hopefully we will start the review shortly. Thank you -- Whiteguru ( talk) 08:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
1. It is reasonably well written.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
5. It is stable.
6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Overall:
Hello again, Whiteguru, and thanks for a very comprehensive review. I agree with you about the early life coverage. When I found the article, it was written like a domestic drama with a cliffhanger at the end of his army career. I confess I wasn't sure if I should cut it back or just reorganise it all into an objective treatment by merging Laker's development as a cricketer into his upbringing. I chose the latter and one of the main reasons I wanted a review was to get someone else's views on it. Must admit I didn't think to see how articles about his contemporaries are handled. The Trueman and Statham articles are useful here because of their lengths – both have over 10k RPS while Laker has 7k. Whereas Laker has no less than fourteen paragraphs before we reach the one that mentions his first-class debut, Trueman has six and Statham has five. So, yes, I will reduce the coverage of Laker's early life and your suggestion of one paragraph per sub-heading will be a useful technique.
Please leave it with me for the present and I'll let you know when I've made some progress. Thanks again. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Whiteguru ( talk · contribs) 08:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Starts Good Article Review Page. Hopefully we will start the review shortly. Thank you -- Whiteguru ( talk) 08:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
1. It is reasonably well written.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
5. It is stable.
6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Overall:
Hello again, Whiteguru, and thanks for a very comprehensive review. I agree with you about the early life coverage. When I found the article, it was written like a domestic drama with a cliffhanger at the end of his army career. I confess I wasn't sure if I should cut it back or just reorganise it all into an objective treatment by merging Laker's development as a cricketer into his upbringing. I chose the latter and one of the main reasons I wanted a review was to get someone else's views on it. Must admit I didn't think to see how articles about his contemporaries are handled. The Trueman and Statham articles are useful here because of their lengths – both have over 10k RPS while Laker has 7k. Whereas Laker has no less than fourteen paragraphs before we reach the one that mentions his first-class debut, Trueman has six and Statham has five. So, yes, I will reduce the coverage of Laker's early life and your suggestion of one paragraph per sub-heading will be a useful technique.
Please leave it with me for the present and I'll let you know when I've made some progress. Thanks again. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)