Talk:Dave Sharma

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dave Sharma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 03:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a couple of Featured List candidates, Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship. I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ-US  03:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Toolbox

[edit]

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool
  • No issues detected Green tickY
Copyright violations Tool
  • Not seeing anything that is actually a violation Green tickY
Disambiguation links
  • No issues detected Green tickY
External links
  • No issues detected Green tickY

Well Written

[edit]
  • "Since May 2013 he has" does not need the comma
    • I think this has been done already?
  • "studying medicine he began working" should have a comma after the introduction so "studying medicine, he began working"
    • Green tickY
  • "in around 1999" can be simplified to "around 1999"
    • Green tickY
  • This part confuses me " (including as the and US President Barack Obama's visit to Australia in November 2011." not as well written as the rest of the article, please reword this.
    • Green tickY Done, oops.
  • The "Africa Branch" section really does not have enough info in it to warrant it's own section, can you add some details or perhaps merge it with the previous section?
    • How's what I did? Can always merge it into another section if you think tha

Sources/verifiable

[edit]
  • All look reliable, correct format, consistent date format etc. when there is an author they're listed etc. It's all good Green tickY

Broad in coverage

[edit]
  • It's a pretty short article, 606 words of "written prose" (excluding info boxes etc.) but it's not so short I would automatically fail it for not being broad enough.
  • Since the criteria is "broad" and not comprehensive this is broad enough Green tickY

Neutral

[edit]
  • Yes, factual and straight forward Green tickY

Stable

[edit]
  • Short article history, no issues jump out at me Green tickY

Illustrated / Images

[edit]
  • No issues detected Green tickY

General

[edit]