Talk:Jack Le Goff/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 18:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, no real problems with this article, just a few minor prose/MOS issues. I will pass once these issues are cleared up.

Is it le Goff or Le Goff?

All of the sources refer to him as "Le Goff", so I have moved the article to the correct title. I think the article is internally consistent, but please let me know if I missed any. - DB

Seems fine now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He coached the team to multiple international championships, winning 18 international medals, including several Olympic medals": repetition of medals.

Reworded. - DB

"Le Goff is known for having a large impact": Not too sure about "large" impact.

I'm not sure if your issue is with the word itself or the idea itself? If the former, I can reword if necessary. If the latter, he was basically the American eventing coach - everyone wanted to ride with him, attending his clinics was a huge deal and the majority of American international-level eventing riders today point to him as an influence. - DB

My issue was the word does not seem quite right. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Le Goff served in the French Army and competed for France": Perhaps specify here what he competed in?

Done. - DB

"he acted as a consultant for finding new riders": Not sure this quite makes sense. For whom was he acting as a consultant? Maybe "He acted as a consultant for X, finding new riders".

Done. - DB

"Born in 1931, Le Goff's father was a French cavalry officer. He began riding early…" This reads like his father began riding early.

Changed to "Jack began riding early...", although I'm not sure if this violates the general rule against referring to the article's subject by their first name. - DB

I've always assumed it is fine in this instance. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As part of the French Army": Possibly "As a French soldier"?

Done. - DB

"he finished twenty-third individually": Should this be 23rd?

Probably technically, but then it would go against consistency, as all of the other medal numbers (sixth, eighth, etc.) are spelled out. Thoughts? - DB

My preference would be for 23rd, but I can see the argument for spelling it out. I'll leave that one up to you. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"His teams earned eighteen international medals in all": Should this be 18?

Done. - DB

"During his time as coach, Le Goff had complete control over the U.S. eventing team, including which horses and riders trained and competed and which riders rode which horses.": A few too many "and"s here.

Reworded. - DB

"some equine historians posit that Le Goff's abilities in this area were what took the U.S. team to numerous medals over his term as coach": Which historians? Also, maybe rephrase as "Le Goff's abilities in this area took the U.S. teams to numerous medals while he was coach"?

Rephrased as suggested...it's obviously a fact that he coached one of the most successful teams in history, so don't think we need the weasel wording of "historians posit". - DB

"he has been called "one of the greatest coaches in three-day-eventing history"": Called by who?

Tweaked to add name. - DB

A few too many sentences starting with "he served".

Changed one. I think there's only one left. - DB

"part time": Should this be part-time?

Done. - DB

"three day eventing judge": three day or Three-Day?

Three-day. Now fixed. - DB

"The 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s have been called the U.S.'s "golden age of equestrian sports"": Called by who?

Reworded. - DB

Spot checks of sources revealed no problems. No problems with dablinks or external links.

I will place the article on hold for now, but I don't foresee any problems. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro, thank you very much for the comments! I apologize for not responding sooner to this - I haven't been online much the past couple of days, due to some RL stuff. I should be able to get to these comments tonight or, at the very latest, tomorrow morning. Thanks again for the review, Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now addressed all of the above, although I had minor questions on a couple of things. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just the one remaining point about "large impact" but I don't think it's worth keeping it on hold for that as it was not a big issue. So I am passing now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]