Talk:1959–60 Burnley F.C. season
Latest comment: 3 years ago by WA8MTWAYC in topic GA Review
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1959–60 Burnley F.C. season article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1959–60 Burnley F.C. season is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 22, 2023. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:1959–60 Burnley F.C. season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hello WA8MTWAYC, I'll be taking up the review for this article which I will present shortly. Hopefully, my feedback will be helpful and I will get to learn something interesting in the process. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- WA8MTWAYC, I am impressed. This is a very well research and well written article. It already meets the good article criteria so I'm going to promote. I have still left some comments below regarding a couple minor issues. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Tayi Arajakate Thank you very much for your time and review, it's really appreciated! I've addressed your comments. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- WA8MTWAYC, I am impressed. This is a very well research and well written article. It already meets the good article criteria so I'm going to promote. I have still left some comments below regarding a couple minor issues. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments
edit- I couldn't access the two books but seeing as there are no issues with original research with respect to the rest of the references, I am going to assume they have been accurately represented in the article.
- Not sure if "protagonists" is an appropiate term to use. I would suggest using "contenders" instead.
- "... before beating Nottingham Forest—last season's FA Cup winners—8–0 at Turf Moor." This reads awkwardly, I would suggest rearranging it into someting like " ... before beating last season's ..."
- I would recommend removing the refs beside the "Results" subheadings and incorporating them in their respective charts in the manner you have done with "Partial league table". I know they aren't technically subheadings but bolded text but they act like subheadings.
Assessment
edit- Comprehension: The article is very well written. Pass
- Verifiability: The article meets standards for verifiability. Pass
- Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive. Pass
- Neutrality: The article is neutral. Pass
- Stability: The article is stable. Pass
- Illustration: The article is well illustrated. Pass
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | The prose is good. | Pass |
(b) (MoS) | The article is complaint with the manual of style. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | The article has a comprehensive coverage. | Pass |
(b) (focused) | The article does not deviate from its subject. | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Complaint with the policy on neutral point of view. | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
No content dispute, edit warring or major changes. | Pass |