Talk:Ian Browne (cyclist)

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  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, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
Details:
 
* Consider putting the RMIT abbreviation after Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology's first appearance. It's not a necessity though.
* Early years section, second paragraph, first sentence. I would use "but did not enter his first formal cycling competetion" as get sounds like he organized the competetion, at least to my American ears.
* Same section and paragraph, why is it significant that he rode to the club with heavy wheels? Did this increase his strength or something?
* Same section and paragraph, fourth sentence ... I would consider rewording to "There was little formal coaching at the club, and the cyclists learned by individual application and by watching and copying others." in order to make the sentence less wordy. 
* Same section, third paragraph. First sentence is awkward with the last word just sorta tacked on. Consider either eliminating distance or adding race after distance.
* Same section and paragraph. A number of the sentences in the middle of this paragraph are very short and stubby. Consider consolidating them to make the prose flow a bit better.
* Olympic Gold section, first paragraph, first sentence. If the 1952 Olympics were held in Helsinki, why do you list "Helsinki and Germany" as the site?
* Same section and paragraph, a bit of explanation for the non-cyclists wouldn't go amiss so we understand what "led at the bell" and "repechage round" are. I won't fail the article on this, but it would be nice.
* I suggest spelling out the first occurances of metres and seconds and then using the abbreviations. Once again, I won't fail the article for this though.
* Later career section, the second paragraph is unsourced. It really should be sourced as some of the paragraph is opinion.
* Would be nice to have a picture, but not a requirement.
All in all, a very nice read. Just some prose quibbles.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 16:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the changes except for the heavy wheels point, which is an idosyncracy rather than any reason at all. Blnguyen  (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks good, passing it now! Ealdgyth | Talk 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review