Talk:Calvin Johnson/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is pretty good. 7/10.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Referencing has problems, with a number of unaddressed tags. Please sort these out soon so that this review can continue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress on the references is being made, I will do a quick further review but I am sure the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * Although no work has been done, I have taken the unusual step in this one instance of hiding the offending tags in the article. Someone needs to address this, but for now the article is good enough to survive as a GA without these things being cited.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)