Talk:1948 Cleveland Browns season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1948 Cleveland Browns season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review; sorry you've had to wait so long for this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

I've read the first few sections and glanced at the rest and this seems in very good shape so far--well written, grammatically solid, and thoroughly sourced. Spotchecks of sources confirm accuracy and no copyvio. Will continue tomorrow. Only two suggestions so far:

  • "The trade is considered one of the most astute in Browns history" -- it would be better to attribute this opinion in-text to Piascik, I think, instead of the vaguer passive voice. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "has not been surpassed since" -- probably should say "as of 2007, had not been surpassed" or some such per WP:REALTIME -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I noted two minor points for WP:REALTIME and WP:WEASEL above that I've simply implemented myself. If you have any objections, we can discuss further.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. 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.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. N/A
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. N/A
7. Overall assessment. An excellently written article. Pass.

Thanks for the review, and your changes look good to me. --Batard0 (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)