Talk:Sir William Johnson, 1st Baronet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and will post my full review in the next day or so. Dana boomer (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   • Per WP:LEAD, the lead section for an article this size should be three to four paragraphs.
   • Standardize to either British or American English. I see both honor and honour and -ize and -isation.
   • Entire article needs a copy edit. In even a quick skim I'm seeing improper punctuation and spelling errors.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Several dead or suspicious links, see the Toolserver report.
   • Citation needed tag in Postwar development section.
   • Pontiac's War and final years section is largely unreferenced, and needs a copy edit.
   • Majority of Death and legacy section is unreferenced (all but first paragraph).
   • In popular culture section is unreferenced trivia.
   • Ancestors section is unreferenced.

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.:

   • Mostly just vandalism reverts, and latest 100 edits go back over three years.

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):

   • File:Johnson Hall by Henry.jpg needs some attention to its tags.
   • File:Sir John Johnson.jpg needs source information.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   While it appears that someone has done quite a bit of work on this article (apparently not the nominator), it is not of GA status yet, and several years have passed since the last cleanup of the article. The deficiencies in referencing is the biggest issue, and will take the longest to fix. Because the article does not meet many of the GA criteria (see WP:WIAGA for the full criteria), I am failing this article's nomination for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)