Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23c136abaa5f689

Jump to content

Talk:Tim Breslin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Khazar2 in topic Archiving citations
Good articleTim Breslin 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
April 18, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 16, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after Tim Breslin's death the American Hockey League's Chicago Wolves created a team award in his honor?

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tim Breslin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll be glad to take this review; sorry you've had to wait so long for a reviewer. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Checklist

[edit]

An initial pass shows no immediate issues. I did make some tweaks as I went for grammar and style; please double-check that I haven't inadvertently introduced any error, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Starting checklist below.

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. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
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.
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. Thanks for this well-researched, well-written article. A clear pass.

Archiving citations

[edit]

I archived the page's non-Highbeam citations for future reference; they can be found below in case of dead links. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply