Ted Heaton 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: October 26, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
Ted Heaton ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 2 October 2022 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from Ted Heaton appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 November 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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: Lee Vilenski ( talk · contribs) 09:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.
@ Lee Vilenski: I feel like I have responded to all your points now, so would appreciate if you could give you assessment or any further suggestions that may be required for the article to have a good designation. Thanks. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
RoySmith (
talk) 17:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Bungle ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 19:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC). @ Onegreatjoke: You beat me to this, as I was going to raise a DYK on this article soon too :) Not to worry, although i'd have probably been looking at going something along the lines of:
I was more thinking that his notability and the basis for the article was predominantly due to his channel swimming attempts, which was widely reported at the time, rather than a self-proclaimed status (although he seemed locally notable for his swim training endeavours too). What do you think? Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Ted Heaton 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: October 26, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
Ted Heaton ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 2 October 2022 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from Ted Heaton appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 November 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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: Lee Vilenski ( talk · contribs) 09:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.
@ Lee Vilenski: I feel like I have responded to all your points now, so would appreciate if you could give you assessment or any further suggestions that may be required for the article to have a good designation. Thanks. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
RoySmith (
talk) 17:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Bungle ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 19:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC). @ Onegreatjoke: You beat me to this, as I was going to raise a DYK on this article soon too :) Not to worry, although i'd have probably been looking at going something along the lines of:
I was more thinking that his notability and the basis for the article was predominantly due to his channel swimming attempts, which was widely reported at the time, rather than a self-proclaimed status (although he seemed locally notable for his swim training endeavours too). What do you think? Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)