Talk:2001 Football League Second Division play-off final/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Prose

Lede

• The 2001 Football League Second Division play-off Final was an association football match which was played on 27 May 2001 at the Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, between Walsall and Reading to determine the third and final team to gain promotion from the Football League Second Division to the First Division. - whilst this is fine, could we split into two sentences? I think the opening sentence of where and when is fine, and a second to say what the match was would be better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Split. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• The top two teams of the 2000–01 Football League Second Division season - this should probably say the top two teams in the league, rather than "of the season", which could be construed as being the best teams. It also says about a table for the other teams, which suggests you know its a league from the start. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• 2001 Football League play-offs should be linked in the lede somewhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• The match was refereed by Eddie Wolstenholme in front of a Millennium Stadium crowd of 50,496 - the location has already been stated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Removed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Millenium Stadium is also a duplicate link. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Should link "relegation". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, curiously that's now a duplicate link (the article is Promotion and relegation) so if you don't like that, perhaps delink it... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

General

• Reading finished the regular 2000–01 season in third place in the First Division, - no they didn't. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• (26 in the league, 1 in the FA Cup and 1 in the League Cup) - is this definition relevant? I think a note would be better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  The distinction is relevant, so much so that football bios in Wikipedia only list league goals. I don't see any advantage to putting these as footnotes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Millennium Stadium in Cardiff - worth mentioning in the body that Cardiff is in Wales. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Sure. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Minor bugbear for me, the term "booked", is a little jargony for my liking. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Well I've linked it to the glossary. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Otherwise all looks good for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski thanks, all addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski you may have forgotten about this? No rush. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It is on my to-do list - don't worry. Apologies for the delay! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries at all. As I said, no rush. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.