Talk:2010 Football League Championship play-off final/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 19:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll take on this one. Courcelles (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• "In the match, Cardiff twice took the lead only for Blackpool to equalise within four minutes on both occasions before taking the lead just before half-time" Reads like Cardiff took the lead for the third time here. - Done
• "They quickly took the lead with two quick goals" Quickly, quick? Clunky. - Done
• You mention Cardiff's lack of roster changes, but not immediately around it anything about Blackpools? Added Blackpool's lack of changes

• More later. Courcelles (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Cardiff started the match as the more positive" Language is sort of unencyclopedic here. - done.
• "again played in Chopra" Shouldn't this be "played in to Chopra"? Played in to Chopra suggests he passed straight to Chopra, played in is used to signify his pass allowed Chopra to run onto the ball in an attacking position.
• "the onrushing Gilks" The what now? onrushing, I can change to advancing if it's inappropriate?

• Likely better. Courcelles (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC) I had forgotten at this point in my read through that Gilks was a name, which was my bad. Courcelles (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't mean to sound condescending with my reply if that's how it came across. I've changed to advancing. Kosack (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• The entire Match summary section could use a pass to make the language more encyclopedic and less like a Sportscenter highlight. I've trimmed and tightened some of the more obvious issues I could find, let me know if there's anymore.
• "were described as the "smallest club to reach the Premier League"" Described as such by whom, should be specified. , done
• All images check out, still need to do a source review. Courcelles (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Thanks for the review, I've made some amendments and hopefully addressed the issues listed above. Kosack (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Source review:

What makes Refs 16 and 17 reliable? Ref 41 needs either a publisher/work added.

Think we're done here after that! Courcelles (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe the Football Club History Database is widely considered a reliable source for football articles. It includes a source list HERE and even has its own Wikipedia template at Template:Fchd for it to be used in articles. Added publisher for ref 41. Kosack (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I found Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gillingham F.C. records, where it passed muster at FLC with Ealdgyth, so I'll roll with it too. Nice article about a single game! Passed. Courcelles (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)