Talk:Al Treml/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Lightburst (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lightburst (talk · contribs) 18:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. I remember it from when it was on the main page at DYK.

Review

it is a shame that we do not have any images. Have you checked for any available imagess that he may have taken?
"inducted in the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame" I suggest (into)
"Vince Lombardi, the Packers head coach and general manager at the time, hired Treml as the Packers film director," unsure if (Packer's or Packers') should used in these instances or it is fine, what do you think?
"longest tenured: might need a hyphen
"three employees who helped filmed games and practices" might need to change filmed to (film)

Gonzo fan2007 One more thing - In early life (kid) seems too informal, but I will leave it up to you. Suggest (child) if you change it Lightburst (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations to do

Lead "was a lifelong Packers fan" is not repeated and cited in the body of the article
Lead "Treml worked for local newspapers and TV stations" only one newspaper is listed in the body

Checked

Early life citation 1 checks out
Career citation 4 is accurate in paragraph one and two
Career citations 2 and 3 check out
Personal life citations check out

Nice little article! Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, thanks for the review, I think I have addressed all your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Thanks so much for the quick response. I hope to pass the nomination this evening after another read through and final checks! Lightburst (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no images and the person is not deceased so non-free is not available

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no images so no captions
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
It was a pleasure to work with you and I am happy to approve this article for GA. Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.