Talk:John Sterling (American football)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 22:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk · contribs) 03:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very readable, even to someone like myself who is not familiar with football. There are no obvious grammar/spelling issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	I was able to access and verify each reference.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nothing in the article wasn't backed up by sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Everything was put into the writer's own words.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	While I originally was skeptical regarding this criteria due to the size of the article, it does seem that the article has all the information available about this topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No off-topic sections. Everything included seems relevant.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I was unable to find any non-copyrighted photos of the individual.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No media so this doesn't apply here.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well written, easy to understand article. While the article is short, it has all the available information on the topic, presented in an organized way.