Talk:Russell Howarth/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 14:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 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):
 * Some serious copy-editing throughout is needed. Some examples:
 * Howarth started his career with the youth system of hometown club York City "in" would better than "with"
 * His debut for the first team came at the age of 17, playing in the first six games of the 1999–2000 season, and signed a professional contract with the club in 1999. mixture of tenses.
 * Despite playing in goal, in one season while playing as a left-sided midfielder he managed to score 29 goals. Clumsy - could be better phrased.
 * joining in 1996 on schoolboy forms, "terms" would better than "forms"
 * He revealed he did not want to play in the game in the fear of an injury ending his proposed transfer to Wolves. "in the fear of" is poor grammar.
 * There is a tendency to WP:OVERLINK, some unnecessary capitalization, the stray sentence in the Lead should be consolidated. When copy-edited thoroughly this has the potential to be a good article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is well referenced to reliable sources, spot-checks show that statements are supported by the cites, no evidence of OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers major aspects, focussed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * No images used.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is near GA quality, but at present is let down by poor prose. On hold for seven days for a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well no action has been taken so this fails its GA nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)