Talk:2003 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship final

Referee affiliation

I've removed references to Brian White, the referee, being affiliated to Waterford. I've found references to him being affiliated to Waterford and Wexford, and I'm not sure which is right. If someone is certain of his affiliation, then by all means include it again. ScoobyHugh (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2003 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 18:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm no expert in Gaelic football, but per WP:DASH I would expect goals and wides to be separated by an en-dash, not a hyphen.
• First sentence of lead is long and involved, and includes several concepts that a non-expert would struggle with, e.g. "county sides", "provincial level". Could use some work, perhaps move some of the more complex explanations to the main part of the article.
• "a boundary - this was " en-dash, not hyphen. There are many examples of this.
• "0-12 - 0-09 " agh, perhaps "0–12 v 0–9" (is there any need for the leading zero in the second scoreline? And maybe link the score to the correct section of Gaelic football as it's certainly not clear to a non-expert.
• " by 2 counties from" 2->two per MOSNUM.
• " since Cork in 1989/1990 " but previously " in 1986 and 1995 but" - is the winning year a range or just a single year?
• "surprisingly lost to" bit POV here.
• You have many refs, but you don't reference "the ties were played whilst Tyrone were competing in the latter stages of the Ulster Championship." for some reason.
• 0-5 vs 0-06, again, I'm no expert but I'd expect to see consistency here. And an en-dash!
• "namely Kerry" no need for namely.
• Link Roads Service.
• Isn't it Hogan Stand rather than Hogan stand?
• " did come on as" -> "came on as"
• "were spurned" bit POV, maybe just "were missed"
• "0-09 – 0–12" in the graphic... so we really need consistency across the whole article regarding these awkward scorelines.
• "References: [50][45]" remove space before refs and list them in numerical order.
• "from the predominantly nationalist" is this referenced?
• Newspapers are normally italicised".
• "another example of nationalists trampling on unionists" if this is a quote, put it in quotes, otherwise it's not neutral in tone and needs work.
• There's a [citation needed] tag which really needs to be resolved.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 22, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: ✗ Fail

2. Factually accurate?: ✓ Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: ✓ Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: ✗ Fail

5. Article stability?: ✓ Pass

6. Images?: ✓ Pass

Some work to do before this should be GA. Good luck with updating the article and addressing my comments.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2003 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Taking this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this one on! ScoobyHugh (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links: OK
• Reference check: OK - Only three so go figure.

Comments: Since most of the sources are offline, I'll have to take your word for a lot of this, and I believe that AGF is not really optional. Though I am quite amazed by the amount of work put into gathering all this information. The issues that I present are not going to be easy to fix, but with some copyediting it should come out just fine. The first issue is this image: Peter_Canavan_-_SFC_2005_cc_3.0.jpg It is not appropriately tagged and this is a problem. Also it appears that the image source is NOT 3.0 because it is disputed by a claim of "Copyright © 2014 Cumann Lúthchleas Gael Uladh" at the bottom of the page and the individual images are of unknown origin and they are being disputed by the website's blanket claim which puts it into doubt. Any doubt means this should be removed. The next issue is the prose, please do a complete copy edit. Here are some issues:

• "This was the first ever All-Ireland Football Final.." - Remove "ever"
• "by virtue of victories" Flowery.
• " Armagh, meanwhile, lost to " - happened at the same time? Drop "meanwhile".
• "which meant they had to enter the All-Ireland qualifiers" three words need to be removed.
• "There were some restrictions on which sides could play each other in the quarter-finals because sides had previously met in the provincial championships" - wording.
• " as Tyrone comfortably won by 1–21 (24 points) to 0–05." - remove comfortably.
• "White had already refereed two All-Ireland finals – namely Kerry against Mayo in 1997 and the replay of Kerry against Galway in 2000." - Relevance?
• " Some analysts did, however, comment on the genuine desire to win both teams displayed." -wording.
• "... controversially sent off in the second half following an off-the-ball incident," - What incident? Explain.
• "In his speech after lifting the trophy, Peter Canavan dedicated the victory to "...every Tyrone team I have played on, ...the 1986 team (beaten in the final by Kerry), and ...every player who played on teams without success." - Why is this quote needed and not paraphrased?
• "Two years later, Peter Canavan's return from injury, coming on as a substitute in the last ten minutes, finished 14th in RTÉ's 2005 series of Top 20 GAA Moments.[57]" wording.

Please just run through and do a full copy edit, those were just a few of the issues that I noticed, but a few fixes and the image matter and this should be passable. I will place it on hold now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the image and done a copy edit. I haven't done much copy-editing before but I hope it's led to improvements in the article. ScoobyHugh (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2003 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411040347/http://www.gaa.ie/about-the-gaa/gaa-history/final-teams/0/0/0/0/3/ to http://www.gaa.ie/about-the-gaa/gaa-history/final-teams/0/0/0/0/3/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2003 ALLIRELAND PROGRAMME.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)