A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
Tham Nguyen (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 23 June 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Tham Nguyen 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. Review: February 20, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
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. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 14:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
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. | Initially there were many issues, given the length of the article, but I think the prose now meets GA standards. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | ||
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No issues found using Earwig's Copyvio detector or during spot checks. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Given that the article is quite short, I searched online, in the British Newspaper Archive, and at Newspapers.com but didn't surface any significant sources not already cited. I think that despite the shortness, the article can be said to cover main aspects of the topic as covered in reliable sources, and in adequate detail for both personal details and career. | |
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. |
Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I made some minor changes to the article. Feel free to disagree with any.
Lead
Infobox
Same aplies for "Club CrossFit Baldoyle Weightlifting Club"
Same aplies for "Coached by Mohamed Faizal Baharom, Beata Jung, Mark Gough"
Early life
Career
Personal life
Arconning: Thanks for your work on the article. However, as it stands, it's a long way from meeting criteria 1a and 2b above, and I was thinking of failing it. However, I'm willing to give you some time to address the comments above. After that, if there's been enough improvement, I'll continue the review. I suggest that before future nominations, you request a copy edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Arconning. The article is in a much better way now. I made a few minor tweaks, hopefully nothing objectionable. A couple more points are below. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thanks, Arconning. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)