# Talk:Old Jock

I've added details of the only two shows which mention Old Jock specifically. If anyone can find any further details, please post them here with the locations for citations as I'd like to put this up as a Good Article shortly as I doubt any major information is out there that isn't already detailed. Miyagawa (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Old Jock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: –Grondemar 21:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 Working I will aim to complete the review in the next few days. –Grondemar 21:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is short but is very close to meeting the good article criteria.  I made some copyedits that I believe improved the prose.  I have the following concerns that will need to be addressed before the good article nomination can be passed:

In the infobox, what does the "relative age" field mean?  From the link, I don't think "12 years" is correct, but I'm also not sure how it is useful.
Checked and it's for that horrible calculation that uses "dog years" to make all dogs about 90. Removed it from the infobox, I don't think its at all relevant. Miyagawa (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
File:Old Jock.jpg: The source listed on this picture is from 1986.  Is that the date of first publication?  If so, this picture might be copyrighted despite its age.  Can you find some more information to lock down when this picture was first published?
Looking into this at the moment, will update here once found. Miyagawa (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
No luck on the origin of this photo. Therefore, I've removed it from the article (replaced it in the infobox with the drawing) and also started a images for deletion on Commons for it. Once deleted, I'll put it up on here as fair use until such a time that the original place and date of publishing is known. Miyagawa (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
File:Jock tartar and nettle.jpg: The date on the picture is 1902, but the book it claims to be from was published in 1895 according to the footnotes in the article.  Could you check which one is correct and fix accordingly?
Checked and fixed it to 1895. Miyagawa (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
This GAN is placed  on hold to allow for the above issues to be addressed.
Thank you. –Grondemar 21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had passed this review already, but since I hadn't, I  pass it now.  Great work! –Grondemar 15:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)