# Talk:Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_Break&oldid=323835626
Cincinnati Reds reference is new to me.  --  Zanimum (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
https://andreacoutu.com/bodybreak-couples-secret-revealed/

Q96419990, BodyBreak
Q96419649, Hal Johnson
Q96419685, Joanne McLeod
Q96418521, Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Canadianhockeyfan79 (talk · contribs) 22:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I've decided to take on this GA review, especially since you've been waiting for so long. I should have it done in about 7 days or so! Canadianhockeyfan79 (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking it on!  --  Zanimum (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


### Immediate Failures
It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria 
It contains copyright violations: Checked with Earwig 
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid 
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page 
A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered 
None of the "immediate failure" conditions apply in this case! 


### Good Article Criteria
##### 1. Well Written
The article is well put together and contains few mistakes. The prose is very clear and the article complies with a manual of style. There are a couple of minor errors however:      


###### Hal Johnson
"Over 10 years" is slightly unclear. Is it meant to say "For over ten years?"
Changed to "For a 10 year period". The source wasn't specific about start and end years, and saying "decade" might imply to some readers that it was an actual calendar decade.
"Johnson's former moustache is well-known" Needs to be elaborated, maybe something along the lines of "Johnson is famous for wearing a moustache, which he shaved in x."
There's no reliable source for the shave date, but the first article noting its demise was 2013. Does the replaced version read okay?


###### Joanne McLeod
"grew up in Scarborough" I'd hyperlink this and include that Scarborough is in Canada/Ontario.
Good point. I've added the link and Ontario there, and then linked Canadian in the introduction.
"McLeod's physical education teacher in high school had competed at the 1968 Olympic Games. The teacher encouraged McLeod to join a track club" Can be combined into one sentence.
Fixed.


###### Segments
"Looking to produce a fitness show that was different than the other programs of the era, they looked to create something friendly, representing genders equally, and showing racial and physical diversity, a result of Johnson's experiences" Awkward wording in this sentence.
How's it read now?
"$2000, collectively" Move collectively to the beginning of the sentence.
Fixed.


###### Appearances
"They feel they were portrayed" Needs to be changed to past tense.
Fixed.
Ultimately, this article is very well written and has very few errors. It clearly meets the GA criteria, without the suggested edits. 


##### 2. Verifiable with no original research
The article has its citations in the correct format, uses reliable sources (with no dead links), and contains no originally research.
I've also checked for plagiarism/ copyright and there were no concerns.
Hold

Comment Sorry to step in here. But you cannot use reference 21. Twitter is not a reliable source. Please remove or replace. Thanks Games of the world (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


##### 3. Broad in its coverage.
The article sufficiently covers the main aspects of the topic and does it good job on balancing being too specific or too broad.
Pass! 


##### 4. Neutral
The article is well balanced and contains no obvious balance.
Pass 


##### 5. Stability
There is no edit wars and the article is very stable.
Pass  


##### 6. Media
The one area where I feel this article could be improved is through the use of a photo of Johnson and McLeod. Have you been able to find any that work? I'll place this on hold for now but I'll upgrade to pass if you can find one
Hold. 

I'm emailing them, to see if they're willing to release something to the Creative Commons. There's nothing on Flickr or CC Search.  --  Zanimum (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


### Verdict
Ultimately, I feel that this article is one photograph away from a pass. I'll place this on hold for now but I'll pass when you add one! If you can't find a photo let me know!


### Status query
Zanimum, Canadianhockeyfan79, where does this nomination stand? It's been about a month and a half since the article was last edited, and there haven't been any posts here or to the article's talk page either. I should probably point out that the GA criteria state about media (including images) that The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided. If there aren't any usable photographs available, then per the criteria that shouldn't be a bar to passage. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Since we obviously can't find a readily available photo, I'll upgrade this to a GA! Canadianhockeyfan79 (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)