Talk:John Henry Johnson/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

Starting review

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

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

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:
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:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Scope:

B. Length:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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

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]