Jump to content

Talk:John Henry Johnson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJohn Henry Johnson 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.
Good topic starJohn Henry Johnson is part of the Million Dollar Backfield (San Francisco 49ers) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 14, 2016Good article nomineeListed
December 15, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John Henry Johnson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 12:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Starting review

[edit]

I'll do this one. Will start soon. Jack | talk page 12:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackJack: Pardon my discourtesy, but will you be reviewing soon? Lizard (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lizard the Wizard:No problem, Lizard. I did intend to do this sooner rather than later but I've been busy elsewhere. Leave it with me. Thanks. Jack | talk page 16:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal, take your time. Lizard (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full review criteria checks

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and embedded lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations):
    C. No original research:
    D. No copyright violations:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Scope:
    B. Length:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Summary

[edit]

Well, this one is as good as it can get. It's a well-written, interesting and throroughly sourced article that fully deserves GA status so I'm passing it without any requests for improvement as, if I had any, I would be guilty of pedantic nitpicking. It is a very good article indeed about a man who was a long-term top-class player. Well done. Jack | talk page 20:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]