Talk:2014 Football League Two play-off final/GA1

GA Review

Passed GA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 11:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
It contains copyright infringements -
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Prose

Lede

Southend United and York City were the losing semi-finalists - I feel this could just be expanded to say who defeated who in the semis, rather than just name drop the remaining teams. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The match ended 1–0 to Fleetwood who were promoted to the third tier of English football for the first time in their history.- should have a comma in here somewhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added comma. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get a short description? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General

regular 2013–14 season - I know the media does use this terminology, but it is a bit American to say the "regular season", I prefer "Fleetwood Town finished the 2013–14 season at fourth place in the Football League Two league table" which I think reiterates that whilst the season is still going on, they finished in fourth place in the table, which is true before and after the playoffs Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reliable sources use "regular season" too, because goals etc scored in play-offs is not considered part of the season. These are usually listed in "others" for appearances and goals. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
play-offs pipes to a redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to specific play-off article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Burton upon Trent on 11 May 2014. - I'm a bit anal about specific dates being sourced, I'm sure it's covered in one of the preceding refs, could we cite this specifically? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference used has "Fixtures" on the right-hand side and lists the game under Sunday 11th May 2014, I think that's more than adequate. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
is there a suitable link for "waterlogged"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of, it's just a dictionary definition. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
participated in the play-offs prior to the 2014 final when they took part in the previous year's play-offs. - could we reword to avoid the repetition of play-off? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
which ended in a 0–0 draw with Kidderminster Harriers. - so, was this a penalty shootout or replay? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it went to a replay not at the national stadium so I didn't think it was pertinent to this specific article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that was a thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the glaring issue with the article is the lack of comments from players/managers after the match - if we could have a paragraph about post-match for this, I' be happy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski cheers, I've responded to and/or addressed all the comments. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to pass. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.