Talk:Neil Harvey/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. A number of non-essential suggestions are given below as pointer to improve the article, principally examples of poor prose. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is pretty good, probably an 8/10, although there are a few places where it becomes unclear which I have listed below.

"Only Bradman had scored more runs and centuries for Australia when Harvey retired." is an odd construction, "When Harvey retired, only Bradman had scored more runs and centuries for Australia." is a more natural way of putting it.
"The innings in replacing Bradman was taken to be symbolism of the fact that Harvey had been tipped to become Australia's leading batsman.[7]" is so awkward I'm not actually sure what is meant.
""He was technically perfect in his shot production. He was batting . . . ." when does this quote end? and why isn't it sourced?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Although I am satisfied that everything is reliably sourced, you should place a reference after every quote to make certain that its provenence is clear.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: