Talk:2011–12 Ivy League men's basketball season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 01:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead is not written in summary style. It has references that do not appear elsewhere in the article. The lead needs to summarise the article. Please move unique information into the body, remove citations from lead, and have lead summarise the article. The list incorporation needs work. Y--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The tables in the post season have no citations and no preceding text explaining them. Some solution needs to be found to address this, either by citing the tables with a reference column or by having text prefacing the tables which have citations which cover it and where the text explains some of what went on. Y--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. 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).	The tables in the post season have no citations and no preceding text explaining them. Some solution needs to be found to address this, either by citing the tables with a reference column or by having text prefacing the tables which have citations which cover it and where the text explains some of what went on. Y--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	The tables in the post season have no citations and no preceding text explaining them. Some solution needs to be found to address this, either by citing the tables with a reference column or by having text prefacing the tables which have citations which cover it and where the text explains some of what went on. Y--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Problems fixed. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reviewed this article on the DYK level and checked about 2/3rds of these things at the time. Hence review brevity. --LauraHale (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]