Jump to content

Talk:2000 Football League First Division play-off final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2000 Football League First Division play-off final 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 9, 2020Good article nomineeListed
May 23, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
January 22, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article

Match

[edit]

Semis

[edit]

Aspiring to GA

[edit]

2005 Football League Cup Final is a nice example. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2000 Football League First Division play-off Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 17:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I didn't really mean to review this, but I saw it on your talk page, started reading it, and one thing led to another. I figured I might as well jot my thoughts down. Harrias talk 17:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Route to the final
Match, Background
Match, First half
  • The infobox tells us that it was sunny, but this isn't mentioned in the prose; it would also be nice to have the kick-off time listed here.
    This is interesting. I could link the video demonstrating that it was gloriously sunny, but can't find any RS saying similar. I guess either ditch it or add a link to YouTube? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "off the bar" find a wikilink for "bar".
    Good ask. Hard answer. Done something.... any use? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure it is clear which team is being talked about at each stage. For example: "Hignett's 25th minute effort passed narrowly past the outside of the post with Wright beaten, and two minutes later a shot from Matt Holland was blocked for a corner." Without scrolling back and forth, it isn't immediately obvious which teams had each shot here, or indeed that they are for different teams. I grant that it might get a little repetitive, but otherwise it isn't that accessible to a layperson.
    Fair. I tried. See what you think. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..with Holland and Naylor being saved by Miller." Does this need explicitly explaining? "..with shots from Holland and Naylor being saved by Miller."
    Just missing words.. Now added. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Match, Second half
Post-match
References
Duplicate links
Images

Right, that's it from me I think. Don't tell anyone I nabbed the newest GA nom in the list, people get funny about that sort of thing! Harrias talk 17:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias thanks, and believe me, I ain't tellin'. Cheers, and I'll be right back at you with updates. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information
Remarkably I seem to be able to see at least the first of those. I wonder if Dweller knows about this? I had a conversation with them yesterday just to see if there was anything from the Times' archive I could add!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the second one but the URL seems to be causing an error with the {{cite web}} template, any advice? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Harrias, I've done everything I think, but a few changes were relatively significant so please feel free to take you time and re-review whenever you like. I'll be here when you're done. Cheers, appreciate your review very much indeed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review

I've made a few minor copy edits: feel free to revert anything you're not keen on.

  • "..which passed narrowly past the outside of the post.." "passed" and "past" seem a bit odd here. I think just "..which passed narrowly outside the post.." would work?
  • Refs #10 and #12 are the same.

Just those I think, and we're done. If you wanted to take this onto FA at some point in the future, I'd hope a greater variety of sources and opinion on the match, but that's not a problem for GA. Harrias talk 20:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias these are both done. I very much appreciate your review and advice going forward. I'm not sure I've ever seen one of these get to FA and I don't think there's a heap more that could be added, but cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]