Talk:Massey Poyntz/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Sahara4u in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 11:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lede

edit
  • Any image for the lede?
  • Unfortunately not at the moment. There is nothing online, and although I do have a photo of him in a book, I can't get a decent scan of it at the moment. I intend to get one eventually though! Harrias talk 13:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • “….was an English cricketer” → “was an English First-class cricketer” or simply “First-class cricketer”
  • Link right-handed batsman
  • “.…….against Cambridge University in 1919.” “the” before Cambridge University, since you have linked it to cricket club. There may be others…..
  • Could you please rephrase the last sentence of the 2nd para?

Early life and career

edit
  • “…followed his older brother Hugh into the Somerset side.[6]” → could you mention his full name?
  • As in "Hugh Poyntz", or "Hugh Stainton Poyntz"? I don't really see the need in either case: he only had one brother named Hugh, so there is no need to include the middle name to disambiguate, and I have linked to his article anyway. It is reasonable to assume that he will have the same surname, so including that is superfluous. Harrias talk 13:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

County captain

edit
  • “……scoring 50 runs exactly in the second innings of a match against Middlesex at Bath.[16]” No need of “exactly” and put “the” before Bath.
  • “…against Hampshire at Bath.[20]” Same as above
  • A link to “bowling average”
  • “….and he scored three half-centuries.” → “and scored three half-centuries.”

Wartime career and later life

edit
  • “..Poyntz was appointed to the 3rd Battalion, Bedfordshire Regiment.[29] → “third”, same for the 2nd in the next sentence
  • “averaging 10.00 from his three innings.” → no need of “his”

Overall, the article looks good and informative. I'll take another look once the above concerns addressed. Zia Khan 11:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your review: I have responded to your comments, and look forward to any further points you might have. Harrias talk 13:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Final review

edit
GA review (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria and WP:GACN)
  1. Well written.
    a (clear and concise prose which doesn't violate copyright laws, grammar and spelling are correct):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and fiction:  
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (well-referenced):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (Wikipedia:No original research):  
  3. Broad in its coverage.
    a (covers major aspects):   b (well-focused):  
  4. Neutral .
    Fair representation, no bias:  
  5. Stable.
    No edit wars nor disputed contents:  
  6. Illustrated appropriately by images.
    No image  
  7. Conclusion: Good work with the article, passes GA criteria. Zia Khan 16:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Pass/Fail: