Talk:Russell Howarth/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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.

2. 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.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers major aspects, focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. 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.

7. 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.