Talk:Daymond Langkow

Daymond Langkow 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
Date	Process	Result
February 7, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Canada: Alberta / Sport Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Ice Hockey

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

Associated task forces:
/
	This article is supported by Philadelphia Flyers task force.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Looks pretty good, just a few things, as I have noted below.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Done In the professional section, does 'Restricted free agent' need to be capitalized, could be piped to lower case, I think. Also, in the same section 'He fell back...' sounds awkward.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Done Missing Persondata (WP:PERSON)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Done References all look good, except some are missing accessdates - 17 and 21 are two that I noticed.

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images should have alt text (WP:ALT)

It is needed for FA but not really for GA. Mephiston999 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Very close, just a few minor things, I'll place it on hold to let you address them.

Well, I come to deal with the issues, and find that Mephiston999 has already done this. My thanks! Reso lute 16:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's been addressed, so I will pass this one Canada Hky (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]