Talk:Tim Bozon

The good article status of this article is being reassessed to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. Date: 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Tim Bozon 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: May 26, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Sports and Games 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 This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). 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 Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by European Ice Hockey task force. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 21:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review--sorry you've had to wait so long for one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On first pass, this looks like solid work: well-written, well-sourced, and ripe for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it. I made a few tweaks as I went; feel free to double-check me and revert anything with which you disagree.

Two minor clarity points:

• " His goal total was the most among all WHL rookies" -- that year or all time?
• "his points second and third overall on the Blazers" -- I'm not quite sure I understand how he took both second and third in points--is this second in goals, third in assists?

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.	See minor clarity points above. 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).	What's the citation for "His goal total was the most among all WHL rookies, his points second and third overall on the Blazers."?
	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.	N/A
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	N/A
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Sorry for the delay. I went ahead and fixed up everything here. Any questions of comments just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]