Talk:1894–95 Small Heath F.C. season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I will conduct a review of this article. I'll have a read through now and add any points below as required. Miyagawa (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Background:"and Chris Charsley played no more League football" - would it be right to say that he retired from League football, rather than "played no more"?
  • It would be right to say he retired, and I've changed it to say "retired from League football to concentrate on his police career". The "played no more" wording stems from the fact that Mr Charsley "retired" from football several times, but on each previous occasion was persuaded to return.
• Review: You need to run through the paragraphs and ensure that the quotes have the required direct citations wherever possible.
  • Done, I think.

• Images: The names don't need to be wikilinked if they've been included elsewhere in nearby article text.
  • Didn't realise that: delinked.

• Match details: Outside of the GA requirements, it would be great to see those other tables sortable as well. However, as unsorted there's a problem with overlinking as each team will only need to be linked in their first appearance in each section - but if it's sortable then that can be ignored.
  • Made Football League First Division results table sortable, but left the others alone. Items in the small tables were only linked once per table anyway.

Other than those few points, it's a really good article and a completely enjoyable read. Miyagawa (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to review the article, and for your kind words. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An enjoyable article that wasn't far from the criteria at all. Happy to pass this one as a GA. Miyagawa (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: