Talk:Jahlil Okafor/GA1

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

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 09:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Article is organised logically. The layout appears to make sense.  The infobox is complete.  The writing could probably be better in some places, but there aren't obvious gaffes that I saw.  The sentences don't always start with he.  This is a good thing.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No plagiarism concerns on check. Sources supported related text.  No original thoughts in here.  Everything in the article is sourced.  (The lead is partial summary style.  Some thoughts there cited but not found in body.)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article comprehensively covers the topic. Not much more can be said about a high school basketball player than what is here.  It might be nice to have more detailed states but that would probably just be filler.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article is an all star young basketball player still in high school. I think, given the topic, the article is as neutral as it can be.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No rename proposals. No AfDs.  No peer reviews.  Looks stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images have acceptable copyrights. Article is illustrated by images.  Would be nice if there were pictures of Okafor playing basketball, but looking on Commons, I didn't see any of them.  Didn't see any of them on Flickr either.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Article is good to go. Not seeing any need for revisions.