Talk:John Johnson (footballer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cloudz679 (talk · contribs) 14:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I will review this article. C679 14:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is too short. Per WP:LEAD, it should serve "as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."  Done

Middlesbrough

When introducing the club name it should not be piped. The current wording is ambiguous as the city's name is in the same sentence. "Where he is a product of the Academy" doesn't seem to make grammatical sense. Try to re-word. Done The infobox says he was at Tranmere from 2008-2009 but the reference and the article say until the end of the year (2008). Which is it? Done The rest of the paragraph is not about Middlesbrough at all, and it looks like the game against Chelsea was his only league appearance, so why not mention that in this paragraph? Done

Northampton Town

"Nine months later" is not a good way to start a section. Re-word or simply delete.  DoneThe first goal of his professional career needs a reference. Done Perhaps this whole first paragraph would be better in a separate section titled "loans" under the Middlesbrough section? "Two days after extending his stay, he scored his second goal, after scoring his first goal about three weeks earlier, in a 4–2 win over Morecambe." I am lost with all of the time clauses - make it more clear. "The following month, in the first round of FA Cup, he provided an assist for Luke Guttridge, who would score a winning goal, in a 2–1 win over Fleetwood Town." - I'm lost again. This should be clear and referenced, or removed from the article. Done

"Northampton later signed Johnson on a permanent basis in July 2010" again you are using redundant phrases, remove "later". Done "he received a straight red card after fouling Simon Clist and lost his appeal" - try to re-word or link to other articles so the meaning is clear.  Done"A week after his suspension, he scored his first goal as a permanent Northampton player in a 2–0 win over Lincoln City on 2 November 2010. Done " again there are two time clauses for the event, cut one out to make it more readable. "In his first permanent basis season" - reword. Done "Johnson was appointed as captain ahead of the new season, having previously been captain but stripped following the arrival of Clarke Carlisle last season,[15] after he took the captaincy in a friendly match against Nottingham Forest." unwieldy and ambiguous, reword. Done "Johnson continued to retain his first team place" - reword. Done "the club announced it would appeal for his sending-off" - this should be appeal against his sending-off. Done "Eventually, the club won the appeal after The Football Association overturned the decision, making him available to play." - again too complicated, this can be explained in fewer words. Done "On 16 May 2012, Johnson signed a new one-year contract with Northampton as his contract was due to expire in the summer, keeping him until 2013," Done- reword and finish with a full stop, not a comma. Done "But unfortunately, his return was short-lived when he came off at half-time and was out until January after undergoing knee surgery." don't use "unfortunately" as it introduces bias, also reword the sentence. Done"Johnson would regain his first team place as the club would finished six place, resulting the club in the play-offs" - this doesn't make sense. Done "Johnson described the season as "the strongest team" he played" - even "he had played in" at the end. Done "two appearance" - plural. Done "Johnson sat out of the bench as an unused substitute in the matches, but Northampton Town, sadly, lose 3–0 against Bradford City to send the club promoted to League One. Done After the play-off's ended, Johnson left Northampton Town after being released by the club." needs re-wording. Done

Bengaluru FC

"found the net" appears too much. Done

Career statistics

• He hasn't played in any continental matches so it is more appropriate to delete the column, rather than have a load of zeros. Done
• Why are the playing stats sourced to three different websites, surely it is much more appropriate to have a single source (Soccerway or Soccerbase) if possible. Done

Referencing

• ref 4 http://borobanter.gazettelive.co.uk/2008/10/boro-need-the-new-boys.html - is this a reliable source?
• ref 15 http://www.footballfancast.com/league-two/northampton-town-team-of-the-season-201112 - is this a reliable source?
• ref 35 - transfermarkt - is not WP:RS and should be removed, use Soccerway or Soccerbase per my comments above.

Right, all of the above needs to be addressed for compliance with parts 1 and 2 of the Good Article Criteria. I will continue the review once the above has been actioned. C679 15:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Criteria 3

a.Other related GAs have a section for "Style of play" or similar, which helps to address the "broad in its coverage" part of the criteria. At the moment the article is mainly goals, transfers and the off red card appeal. Done A "personal life" section with any non-footballing info, such as background, would help here as well, if information can be found.

b.Summary style should be present, at the moment the Bengaluru section only contains consecutive sentences about on X Foomber, he scored against Foo United. On Y Foomber, he scored against Z City. It would be more readable to state that he scored in each of his first three matches - and you can think about what you can add from the last three months.

Criteria 4,5,6

ok

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

In summary the article is not sufficiently well-written at this stage (criteria 1). There are a few referencing issues (criteria 2) which may easily be addressed, and some further areas to address under criteria 3. Therefore I am putting this on hold for a period of one week.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   on hold for a period of one week

   A week has passed, referencing issues mentioned above have not been addressed, prose is still sub-standard. At this time it's a fail. C679 20:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)