Talk:1927 FA Charity Shield
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Dr. Blofeld in topic GA Review
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |  |
| 1927 FA Charity Shield 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:1927 FA Charity Shield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 21:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I will do this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Lede
- "There was a large " -there were, you sound like David Beckham!
- "With only a few minutes remaining on the clock, Cardiff won a corner kick and from the cross, Len Davies tapped the ball into the net to put them ahead. " -needs an "and" here
- " to form Corinthian-Casuals" =the Corinthian-Casuals?
- Background
- "Corinthian announced their team a few days prior to the game,[9] but subsequently goalkeeper Benjamin Howard Baker was replaced by A.M. Russell, who normally played for Cambridge University A.F.C.." -try "Corinthian announced their team a few days prior to the game, though goalkeeper Benjamin Howard Baker was subsequently replaced by A.M. Russell, who normally played for Cambridge University A.F.C.."
- Match
- "The Corinthians gained a corner kick early on, but Cardiff cleared. This was followed up by a further attack by the amateurs, but R.G. Jenkins' shot went straight to Tom Farquharson in the Cardiff goal. Cardiff attacked twice in quick succession, but both chances were squandered. " -rep of but, in fact the whole paragraph uses it excessively, needs a good copyedit to partly avoid it.
- Post match
Is Post match or "Aftermath" preferrable?
@Miyagawa:♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for reviewing! - I've made those edits; I've reduced the "buts" by about two thirds overall. I double checked the Football WikiProject's MOS for matches at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Matches and realised that "Post match" should have been "Post-match". Miyagawa (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: Looks adequate enough, given that this is the shield, not the cup. Pity they couldn't do it again!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
