Talk:1996 Football League Second Division play-off final/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –Grondemar 04:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Working I will aim to complete this review in the next few days. –Grondemar 04:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is overall a very good article. I've been improving a series of American college football bowl game articles to Good and Featured status, so it's interesting for me to see the similar elements come together in a slightly different format.

• The second paragraph of the lead needs work. It currently talks mostly about Bradford's route to the final. For balance it should also talk about Notts County and how they got to the final. It might also be good to explain the flow of the game in the lead; when were the goals scored? Was it a surprise that Bradford beat Notts, or were they the favorite? If the paragraph gets too long it may be good to split it into two.
  • I've added a few details and expanded the lead. I was trying not to make it overly-long but hopefully its concise and holds more details now. Brad78 (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Route to the final first paragraph: you mention the Blackpool-Bradford matchup but was there anything notable about the Notts-Crewe Alexandra matchup?
  • I'm not sure there's anything more I can add. The Bradford semi-final gets two lines and the Notts County semi-final a line-and-a-half, so I thought it was generally balanced anyway. Brad78 (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Kamara opted for Shutt, who was only rated as 50:50 before the final..."—does that mean he was injured, and had only a 50% chance of playing?
  • It does. I've changed this to reflect a more clear explanation. Brad78 (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the edits proposed above will correct a slight pro-Bradford bias in the article and ensure WP:NPOV; once they have been accomplished I will be happy to pass this as a Good Article.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This Good Article Nomination will be on hold for a minimum of seven days to allow the above issues to be addressed.

Thank you. –Grondemar 02:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. Hopefully, I've addressed all the points you made, and it looks better now. Feel free to get back to me with any more questions. Brad78 (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for the quick response! I'm satisfied and am passing this article as a Good Article. Congratulations! –Grondemar 12:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)