# Talk:David McGurk

This review is transcluded from Talk:David McGurk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Well done.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the lead, link "York City" once, per here. Do the same in the Career section, link "2004-05 season" once.
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
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 there no info. available about his personal life or something?
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: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article.
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Replies

1B
A link to York City is already present in the first line and I've removed the second 2004–05 season link. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
York City shouldn't be linked twice. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I see what you mean now. Link removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No need to apologize, simple mistake. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
3B
I've conducted searches on Google but as yet have not been able to find anything. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
If there isn't anything, then its fine. I was just wondering if there was something available. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you to Mattythewhite for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)