# Talk:Greg Mancz

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greg Mancz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bcschneider53 (talk · contribs) 12:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this one. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

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

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Lead
The lead is only two sentences right now. It could definitely be expanded a bit.
I expanded the lead. Let me know if you think it needs more. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


### Early years
No issues.


### College career
#### 2011–2013
Almost every sentence here starts with "He". Perhaps you could try combining some sentences or using his surname to make it less repetitive.
The 2012 paragraph is only one sentence. Either expand it (maybe highlights from one or two games) or merge it with the 2011 season paragraph.
Added his surname in places and merged the sentence. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


#### 2014
He moved to center for the 2014 season." Any reason why?
"He then returned, and started, in the team's GoDaddy Bowl" Change to "He then returned as a starter in the team's GoDaddy Bowl"
Fixed both. Let me know if you think his move to center needs better wording. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


### Professional career
No issues.


### Personal life
I think that last sentence can just be merged with the main paragraph.
Merged. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


### References
Some of the references are to websites where it would be better to use the publication title rather than their .com address (e.g. si.com can be Sports Illustrated, foxsports.com can be Fox Sports, etc.). I won't let this prevent the article from GA status but it's something to keep in mind for the future.
I'll change them but I'm not sure which one should be changed to that style. It seems like most of them could. Is there a guideline somewhere about this. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
As this is the only remaining thing, I'll pass this nomination. There is no official guideline to my knowledge, but if you think most of them can be changed, I'd go ahead and change them. When a reader is looking for the publisher, Sports Illustrated grabs their attention much faster than "si.com" would. Again, this isn't something that prevents promotion to GA status, but I think the refs would look better that way. Congratulations! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bcschneider53: Thanks for another review. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)