Talk:Ezra Johnson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links: OK
• Reference check: OK

Comments: Overall, this was a really nice article and there are only some minor issues that stand in the way of it being passed. And not much of it is really a big deal, some minor word choices, flow and a matter of small numbers being inconsistently written out only to be give numerically later.

• "He earned a Pro Bowl berth in 1978 after leading the league in sacks with 20.5." Not sure what a "berth" is, but the end of the sentence is awkward "with 20.5 sacks." perhaps?
  • I reworded "berth" as it means clinched, and finished the second,
• " including one incident in which he ate a hot dog while sitting on the bench during a preseason game" - this might sound like a tone issue... but while it is a major matter from what spawned of it, I think the wording could be altered. It doesn't seem serious, but it was.
  • Infamous incident still talked about today, really don't want to further expand the lead with it. Secret ^account 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• "and bounced around with several teams before retiring" - please change "bounced around".
  • Reworded. Secret ^account 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• " Despite his adverse relationship with the team at times, Johnson was elected to the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame in 1997." Sentence structure is a little weak and I do not like using the word "Despite" as an opener. "Though Johnson's relationship with the team was imperfect, he was elected to the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame in 1997." Maybe?
• College career could be a little bigger, I understand his size was a factor, but was there any commentary or data that could be used to fill this out a bit more?
  • I looked and I couldn't find anything relevant, it was the size of the college program that made it a factor, not him. Secret ^account 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, just was wondering - I like to test the waters a bit and ask somewhat obvious questions to make sure that nothing was overlooked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• " because of lack of major college experience" - of (word) of - is a bit weird sounding, even though I think it could be resolved with some tinkering. "...his small size and lack of college experience..." - Why is "major" needed anyways?
  • He played for a small school by college football standards, a Division II school, should I link it instead? Secret ^account 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • It was more the wording, but additional nuance and details... true to form the major college experience line was indeed used later in reference to Johnson in the Koch matter, but his "lack of experience from playing in a Morris Brown, a small Division II school..." might be the type of wording that could go further. Especially since I don't see the school being attributed as a Division II school in the text. It also gives added context to why Johnson's pick was both a gamble and unexpected in the first round. It is a really tiny matter not going to impact the GA process, but I know improving the article comes first to you, if you don't have any good ideas on fixing it now, just let it stew for a bit and I could pass it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• " as the backup for Alden Roche at defensive end." - Seems a bit awkward to me.
• "It was a decision which confused the local media as Johnson had been the starter since 1978. Merrill, who was released by the Cincinnati Bengals and claimed off waivers by the Packers, was considered by the team as the better, more consistent interior lineman against the run." - Too much for one sentence, I think, but restructuring might fix it.
• Some of the numbers run into WP:ORDINAL, with "missing 10 of the first 11 games", but I think it's the "three and a half sacks" that touched my little alarm off, might be easier to fix that one written notation instead.
• "He played in 192 games in his career, having officially 55.5 quarterback sacks (99 when his unofficial totals are added).[4]" - I like paragraphs to end strong when they close the career of an individual, I suggestion opening this with "Throughout Johnson's 192 game career..." Though it is just another idea.

Overall, this article has a few minor wording issues, but it is detailed and focused, giving enough context to both the major and more minor events throughout his career. I think this will be an easy pass provided some slight fixes. Placing it on hold. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The remaining issues are rather trivial and cannot impede its passage at this point, rather than quibble over word choice when the standards are met, I'll pass this now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why no profile pictures are added to his infobox? Is there copyright issue? Forbidden User (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)