Talk:Roy Lester

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRoy Lester has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 10, 2010Good article nomineeListed

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roy Lester/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Seems a bit light. On reading through the article, I'd mention something more about his time at Maryland; perhaps the turnover of coaches before he took over, his previous applications or the reasons for his sacking. Or perhaps all three.
Green tickY Expanded. Let me know if that is satisfactory.
Early life
  • "Lester was named to the West Virginia 1940–1949 All-Time Team." Is this right? 1940–1949 and All-Time Team seemed to be a bit contradictory.
Green tickY Fixed.
High school coach
  • "He then moved on to Allegany High School in Cumberland, Maryland." Rather than use "then" it would be better to say which year.
Green tickY I used "following year" to make it less redundant with repeated numerical years.
I agree about the overuse of years and dates. Nice change. Brad78 (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maryland
  • "In the season's second-to-last game," Would penultimate game not be better?
Green tickY Changed.
  • "Lester attributed Maryland's football woes to the turnover at head coach and lack of depth due to recruiting shortcomings." recruiting shortcomings doesn't quite sound right. How about recruitment shortcomings?
Green tickY Changed.
Return to high school coaching
  • "His combined high school coaching record was 260–72–3." Do you have a source for this?
Green tickY Removed it, because I can't find a source. It looks like he won 260 games at Montgomery County schools alone though, which wouldn't include Walton or Allegany.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    On the whole, a good read and well written. Just those points above need addressing.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Just needs a reference for the record, as above
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Brad78 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. I made some changes to address your comments. Please let me know how that looks, and if you have any other concerns. Strikehold (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's great now. Nice expansion on the lead. Now passes the GA criteria. Brad78 (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This article recently failed an ITN nomination and was noted as not being a GA, so requesting reassessment. - Indefensible (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]