Talk:2000–01 S.L. Benfica season

2000–01 S.L. Benfica season 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.
Review: January 23, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Football: Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal 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 season article task force.

Portugal Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Scribbleink, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 30 July 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

July 2015 Copyedit

@Threeohsix: – I believe I am done with a once-over copyedit. Since section 4 ("Players") has only a single subsection with a single sub-subsection, what do you think about merging the related information from section 2 ("Squad") into section 4? By moving section 2 down, I feel that the article might read better with the matches of the season coming first and extra details of exact squad coming later. Thoughts? ← scribbleink ^ᗧHᗣT 16:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scribbleink: First, thanks for the work put into it, very good, and especially consider this no where near your area of interest. Regarding you're question, I've recently been aware that "squad" tables like that are excessive, and that it's only needed the table at the end, with games played. You're free to remove it, and join transfers with statistics. Hope you can also do 1999–2000 S.L. Benfica season in the future, since the expertise you've gained with this C/E will make it easier for you to do it.--Threeohsix (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Threeohsix: You're welcome. I try to keep my Wikipedia experience improving by learning about the WP:MOS of different WikiProjects. The one for football is new to me, but it wasn't terribly complicated. Glad you like the outcome. Regarding the table excessiveness, I'm really not an expert on determining what to remove and what to keep. Since you, or other editors, have more experience with a broader set of football-related articles, I urge you (or other editors) to please simplify it. I have tried to follow the manual of style example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. If you stick to it and just change the tables, we should be golden. For now, I believe I am done with the copyedit request. I will continue to watch the page and participate as and when necessary. ← scribbleink ^ᗧHᗣT 16:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scribbleink: Thanks for the work, I'll do that. Just a heads up, regarding WP:ALSO, you shouldn't repeat links, that already exist in the article, but links to "tangentially related topics". Hope I see you again editing one of my requests. --Threeohsix (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2000–01 S.L. Benfica season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parutakupiu (talk · contribs) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

In my view, this article has what it takes to be considered a Good Article. The only aspect that will require more attention and care in future (and more demanding) reviews is the quality of the prose, which needs substantial improvement. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
Relies too much on a single source (Record), but I understand it gets harder finding varied references for such "old seasons". Good use of source archiving, though.

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
A quite fair description and analysis of the club's poorest season ever.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
If you cannot find an image of the squad, maybe one of the coach(es), or the top scorer.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Parutakupiu I admit that the prose it is not perfect, but I'm not experienced enough to write with the quality that you might expect. I requested to c/e to "polish" it, but the quality of the improvements depends on the familiarity of the copy-editer with the subject. It's not science or math, but knowing a extensive vocabulary about football is important. Also, because "Record" is the only available source, it limits the amount of detail it is put into the article. I chose not to add picture of manager of coach, because they are optional to GAN. If it would be a deal-breaker, I would add them. --Threeohsix (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threeohsix, I know. That's why I passed it on criterium 1a, because the current level is enough for GA status. I actually refrained myself from doing some copyediting because of this and because I can help you on that in future reviews. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]