Talk:1959–60 Burnley F.C. season/GA1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by WA8MTWAYC in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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.
- Verifiability: The article meets standards for verifiability.
- Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive.
- Neutrality: The article is neutral.
- Stability: The article is stable.
- 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
|
Pass
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | The article is cited with in-line citations. | Pass
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | Sources used are reliable. | Pass
|
| (c) (original research) | No original research was found. | Pass
|
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | No copyright violations found. | Pass
|
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
|
Pass
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Complaint with the policy on neutral point of view. | Pass
|
Pass
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| No content dispute, edit warring or major changes. | Pass
|
Pass
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Images are tagged with their appropriate copyright statuses. | Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | Caption and use are good. | Pass
|