Talk:1891–92 Sheffield United F.C. season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The C of E (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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:

I'll review this, Overall I think it is well written. Since most of the sources are offline, I am going to AGF on them. I do think that there are a few prose issues that should be sorted out before I can pass this:

• The first line of the second lead paragraph should have a comma after Woolstinholm
  • Done.
• No need to link Woolstinholm when he's already been linked earlier in the main body of text
  • Not sure where you mean?
    • It's where you linked him in the lead and then linked to him again in the first paragraph. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that calling the accusations acrimonious fulfills WP:LABEL
  • It's how it's described in the source but removed.
• It seems a bit of a violation of WP:PEA to describe teams as strong
  • Altered
• Per MOS:OPED, losses should not be described as disappointing.
  • Altered
• The last sentence of the Northern League section, "They" is used a bit much, might be better to say that United wanted to review the ballot papers to clarify.
  • Revised.
• The Club can't get angry as a non-living thing, don't you mean that it angered the club directors?
  • Revised.
  • I would also remove the word further after that as the article at the moment only says that the decision annoyed them.
    • Not sure I agree - the initial decision to place United in Div 2 and Wednesday in Div 1 angered the directors, the FA's refusal to release the papers also angered them and made the situation worse, so a description of it 'angering them further' seems aposite?
• Again per OPED, I'd change "easily dispatched"
  • Altered.
• Kilnhurst should be linked when first mentioned.
  • Kilnhurst F.C. don't have a WP article (and don't meet football notability so will never have) so there's nothing to link to. I omitted a wiki link to avoid a perpetual redlink
• In the results, It should really have the city next to the ground name, otherwise who would know where South Bank were from for example?
  • Done

Otherwise, picture licenses are fine (As I'd expect them to be given the time period) Just need to iron out these issues and I'll clear it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've updated most of the above but have a couple of further queries / points. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Updated the last outstanding point. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

All OK. We have a new Good Article. Congratulations. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)