# Talk:Jordan Eberle

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jordan Eberle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
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: 
Well done.
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, 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: 
Reference 17 needs to be properly formatted. Ref. 32 needs an accessdate. Also, Ref. 42 is a dead link.
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: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Not that much to do! If the concerns above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and taken care of those problems with the references.  Thanks for the review!  Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome for it, just doing my part. Thank you to Orlandkurtenbach 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) 23:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


### Jordan Eberle
Femke, I believe I have brought this article back up to GA condition. Could you possibly re-review it? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
That's great, thanks for your work! Unfortunately I don't have the time to review. If you believe it meets the criteria, you can nominate the article at WP:GAN. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)