Talk:John Mousinho/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Brentford section, "...and there wasn't a substitute goalkeeper available" ---> "...and there was not a substitute goalkeeper available", per here. Same section, "...because he didn't feature in the club's future plans" ---> "...because he did not feature in the club's future plans".

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Brentford section, please link "Kevin O'Connor" to its correspondence article, as at the moment it stands out as a disambiguation. Same section, this is me, but maybe replacing "America" with "United States", seems more encyclopedic IMO. Same section, you have "Yeading" linked twice, and you only need it linked once.

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   "Bucks Free Press" needs to be in the "work", not "publisher", format of the source, as it is a newspaper. All the BBC links have different url paths, so you might want to update that.

   Check.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Is "Chairboys.co.uk" a reliable source?

   Check.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not that much to do. If the above query can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Amended the majority of changes. The url paths are something that is common with BBC Sport because of the change in format, if you know how I can get round this then that would be much appreciated. Also got rid of the chairboys.co.uk reference given the other two pieces of information were provided in the following reference. Let me know if there's anything else. Thanks. SBFCEdit (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Check on everything. Well, if BBC Sports change their url links, it might be best to update that, cause majority of the time the links go dead, but I won't hold that against you. Thank you to SBFCEdit for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)