Talk:David Johnson (footballer, born 1976)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 23:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: – PeeJay

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  23:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

1: 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 lists:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 6) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 7) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 8) *** David Anthony Johnson (born 15 August 1976) is a Jamaican former footballer.
 * 9) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 10) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 11) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 12) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 13) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 14) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 15) ** Check for Biographies: ✅
 * 16) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 17) Check for Biographies of living persons:  ✅
 * 18) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 19) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 20) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 21) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 22) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 23) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) ** Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. (WP:BETTER)
 * 6) ** Fix short paragraphs. Fix the Personal life section, the paragraph is too short.
 * 7) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 8) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 9) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 10) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): ✅
 * 13) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 14) * Check for Links to sister projects: ✅
 * 15) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 16) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 17) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 18) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 19) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

✅


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

Check for WP:BLP:


 * 1) Check for Writing style (WP:BLPSTYLE):
 * 2) * Check for Tone:
 * 3) * Check for Balance (WP:COAT):
 * 4) Check for Reliable sources:
 * 5) * Check for Challenged or likely to be challenged (WP:BLPSOURCES):
 * 6) * Check for Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material (WP:GRAPEVINE):
 * 7) * Check for Avoid gossip and feedback loops (WP:BLPGOSSIP):
 * 8) * Check for Avoid misuse of primary sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY):
 * 9) * Check for Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS):
 * 10) * Check for Further reading, external links, and see also (WP:BLPEL):
 * 11) Check for Presumption in favor of privacy:
 * 12) * Check for Avoid victimization (WP:AVOIDVICTIM):
 * 13) * Check for Public figures (WP:PUBLICFIGURE):
 * 14) * Check for Privacy of personal information and using primary sources (WP:DOB):
 * 15) * Check for People who are relatively unknown (WP:NPF):
 * 16) * Check for Subjects notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E):
 * 17) * Check for Persons accused of crime' (WP:BLPCRIME):
 * 18) * Check for Privacy of names (WP:BLPNAME):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: Yes
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 7) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 8) * What else has the author published?:
 * 9) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 10) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 3) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) Check for copyright status:  ✅
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  ✅
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  ✅

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅

Tom, I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article :
 * I think the layout needs to be fixed.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. All the best, --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  01:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Seabuckthorn, thanks for your review. I'm glad you had so few concerns over the article. I've split the "Early career" section into two paragraphs as per your suggestions above, but I'm not sure what to do about the "Personal life" section/paragraph. I've found some more info that could possibly be incorporated into the section, but it would be as a separate paragraph, which wouldn't really solve the problem of that paragraph being too short. I'll make the changes and then you can review as you see fit. Either way, hopefully this one issue won't stop you from promoting the article. – PeeJay 02:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks, Tom, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. No worries! --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  03:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  03:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)