Talk:Gedling Miners Welfare F.C./GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Curlymanjaro (talk · contribs) 09:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be taking this review for the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive; please consider participating in the latter especially. Comments to follow shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch,
fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
General comments
[edit]- Looks like a very good article. Prose quality is excellent—FA standard.
- Article is stable, and includes well-tagged images. Some of the images of places could do with being enlarged with the |upright= parameter.
- The Daily Mirror quote in the lead could be paraphrased instead of directly quoted.
- What's the reasoning for only having a season-by-season record since 2003? Just to save time, or are the sources for previous years not there?
- Spotcheck passed (ten sources checked). Just a couple of (very minor) issues which I'd like the nominator to weigh in on; if they don't, I'll likely make a change or two and pass the article anyway. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)