Talk:John Mousinho

	John Mousinho 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 15, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Sports and Games 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 This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). Football: American & Canadian / England / English non-league Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the English non-league task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This review is

transcluded from Talk:John Mousinho/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Brentford section, "...and there wasn't a substitute goalkeeper available" ---> "...and there was not a substitute goalkeeper available", per

   here

   . Same section, "...because he didn't feature in the club's future plans" ---> "...because he did not feature in the club's future plans".

   Check.

   B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

   In the Brentford section, please link "Kevin O'Connor" to its correspondence article, as at the moment it stands out as a disambiguation. Same section, this is me, but maybe replacing "America" with "United States", seems more encyclopedic IMO. Same section, you have "Yeading" linked twice, and you only need it linked once.

   Check.

2. Is it
   source spot-check
   ?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

   the layout style guideline

   :

   "Bucks Free Press" needs to be in the "work", not "publisher", format of the source, as it is a newspaper. All the BBC links have different url paths, so you might want to update that.

   Check.

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Is "Chairboys.co.uk" a reliable source?

   Check.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not that much to do. If the above query can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!