Talk:1927 FA Charity Shield/GA1

GA Review

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

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

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. 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)