Talk:Table tennis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias ^talk 22:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Has some very short sections (such as notable players) which should probably be expanded on slightly, and the table in said section doesn't adhere to MOS:TABLE

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The vast majority of the article is unreferenced, and many of the claims made within the article sound like they could be original research (such as "In casual games, many players do not toss the ball upward; however, this is technically illegal and can give the serving player an unfair advantage.") Styles of play and effects of spin have almost no references in them at all.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Possibly goes into too much detail on styles of play and effects of spin, these could be better covered in a sub article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article was semi-protected due to vandalism in mid September, and since being unprotected, has been reverted a number of times due to vandalism.

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:

   While this is a nice start for a sport, it is lacking in many areas. For a good example of a general page, take a look at Chess and Field lacrosse for some differing approaches that remain broad in their general coverage, while providing enough specifics to be useful. Harrias ^talk 22:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)