Talk:Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod

Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 10, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Canada: Ontario Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Athletics Low‑importance

	Sport of athletics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Athletics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the sport of athletics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and join the discussion.AthleticsWikipedia:WikiProject AthleticsTemplate:WikiProject AthleticsAthletics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Deleted article

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_Break&oldid=323835626

Cincinnati Reds reference is new to me. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://andreacoutu.com/bodybreak-couples-secret-revealed/

Wikidata

Q96419990, BodyBreak
Q96419649, Hal Johnson
Q96419685, Joanne McLeod
Q96418521, Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadianhockeyfan79 (talk · contribs) 22:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've decided to take on this GA review, especially since you've been waiting for so long. I should have it done in about 7 days or so! Canadianhockeyfan79 (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking it on! -- Zanimum (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
It contains copyright violations: Checked with Earwig
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page
A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered

None of the "immediate failure" conditions apply in this case!

Good Article Criteria

1. Well Written

The article is well put together and contains few mistakes. The prose is very clear and the article complies with a manual of style. There are a couple of minor errors however:

Hal Johnson

"Over 10 years" is slightly unclear. Is it meant to say "For over ten years?"
- Changed to "For a 10 year period". The source wasn't specific about start and end years, and saying "decade" might imply to some readers that it was an actual calendar decade.
"Johnson's former moustache is well-known" Needs to be elaborated, maybe something along the lines of "Johnson is famous for wearing a moustache, which he shaved in x."
- There's no reliable source for the shave date, but the first article noting its demise was 2013. Does the replaced version read okay?

Joanne McLeod

"grew up in Scarborough" I'd hyperlink this and include that Scarborough is in Canada/Ontario.
- Good point. I've added the link and Ontario there, and then linked Canadian in the introduction.
"McLeod's physical education teacher in high school had competed at the 1968 Olympic Games. The teacher encouraged McLeod to join a track club" Can be combined into one sentence.
- Fixed.

Segments

"Looking to produce a fitness show that was different than the other programs of the era, they looked to create something friendly, representing genders equally, and showing racial and physical diversity, a result of Johnson's experiences" Awkward wording in this sentence.
- How's it read now?
"$2000, collectively" Move collectively to the beginning of the sentence.
- Fixed.

Appearances

"They feel they were portrayed" Needs to be changed to past tense.
- Fixed.

Ultimately, this article is very well written and has very few errors. It clearly meets the GA criteria, without the suggested edits.

2. Verifiable with no original research

The article has its citations in the correct format, uses reliable sources (with no dead links), and contains no originally research.
I've also checked for plagiarism/ copyright and there were no concerns.

Hold

Comment Sorry to step in here. But you cannot use reference 21. Twitter is not a reliable source. Please remove or replace. Thanks Games of the world (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage.

The article sufficiently covers the main aspects of the topic and does it good job on balancing being too specific or too broad.

Pass!

4. Neutral

The article is well balanced and contains no obvious balance.

Pass

5. Stability

There is no edit wars and the article is very stable.

Pass

6. Media

The one area where I feel this article could be improved is through the use of a photo of Johnson and McLeod. Have you been able to find any that work? I'll place this on hold for now but I'll upgrade to pass if you can find one

Hold.

I'm emailing them, to see if they're willing to release something to the Creative Commons. There's nothing on Flickr or CC Search. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Ultimately, I feel that this article is one photograph away from a pass. I'll place this on hold for now but I'll pass when you add one! If you can't find a photo let me know!

Status query

Zanimum, Canadianhockeyfan79, where does this nomination stand? It's been about a month and a half since the article was last edited, and there haven't been any posts here or to the article's talk page either. I should probably point out that the GA criteria state about media (including images) that The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided. If there aren't any usable photographs available, then per the criteria that shouldn't be a bar to passage. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Since we obviously can't find a readily available photo, I'll upgrade this to a GA! Canadianhockeyfan79 (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]