# Talk:Steffen Peters

This review is transcluded from Talk:Steffen Peters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 16:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments

Where is his birth date referenced?
Reference #1 in the Personal life section, directly after the sentence that states this information. - DB
" in the sport of " not sure you need "the sport of".
"who competes" followed by "he competes". Ok, so it's not FAC but repetitive prose is repetitive.
I'm not sure but I thought US convention these days on "Peters'" would be "Peters's".
Really? I was always taught "Peters'". After taking a quick look, the style guides appear to disagree and be completely inconsistent on this issue - some say use the extra "s", some say don't. If you don't have a major problem with it, I'd prefer to leave it was it is. - DB
"he was unable to have his citizenship papers processed in time to " -> "however his citizenship papers were not processed in time"
"and so was not a member of the team in Barcelona" -> "and so did not compete in Barcelona" (just trying to tighten this prose a little).
What's a "top horse"?
"for the 2008 Summer Olympics.[10] In individual dressage competition at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing," repetitive and badly linked.
I'm not sure exactly what you were going for here, but I've made some tweaks to the wording and linking. - DB
" of the prestigious German" POV creeping in here?
I don't think so... This is a huge international competition, and of huge importance. It's not the Olympics or World Equestrian Games, but it's not a backyard show either. - DB
Check refs for WP:DASH and ensure all available fields are used (like accessdate.
I think I've addressed the dash issues, and as far as I know all necessary fields are used for the references. Access dates are not needed for print journal articles where the link is provided as a courtesy. - DB
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, TRM. These comments look fairly easy to address, and I should have a chance to do so this evening. Dana boomer (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No worries, indeed they are mainly trivial.  Let me know when you're ready for a re-review.  Best, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, a bit late, but I think I've addressed everything above. I've left comments where I had comments/clarifications, and otherwise just addressed your comments without leaving a response. Please let me know if you see further work that needs to be done. Thanks again for the review, Dana boomer (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Some MOS issues as noted above.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

On hold pending the comments made above. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)