# Talk:Daymond Langkow

This review is transcluded from Talk:Daymond Langkow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Looks pretty good, just a few things, as I have noted below.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
 Done In the professional section, does 'Restricted free agent' need to be capitalized, could be piped to lower case, I think.  Also, in the same section 'He fell back...' sounds awkward.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
 Done Missing Persondata (WP:PERSON)
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: 
 Done References all look good, except some are missing accessdates - 17 and 21 are two that I noticed.
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: 
Images should have alt text (WP:ALT)
It is needed for FA but not really for GA. Mephiston999 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Very close, just a few minor things, I'll place it on hold to let you address them.

Well, I come to deal with the issues, and find that Mephiston999 has already done this.  My thanks! Resolute 16:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything's been addressed, so I will pass this one  Canada Hky (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)