Talk:2018 EFL Championship play-off final/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:57, 29 April 2020 (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 will 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
editIt 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
editProse
editLede
edit- Maybe mention where Wembley Stadium is? I know it's a well known Stadia, but considering the lede doesn't mention the country, let alone it being in London, might be worth stating (especially as there are other "Premier Leagues".)
- There are two citations in the infobox. For one match, I feel mentioning who was the man of the match could be done in prose. The ref is cited in prose, so we don't need that cite.
General
edit- Could we move the table down a bit? It runs right next to the infobox, which could be avoided on most screens.
- As discussed we have a solution: bigger lead! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- The article does assume we know how the EFL Championship works. Maybe mention first what the league is, (a 24 team round-robin), with the first two teams being promoted, and what the play-off is. I'm sure an American looking at this would be confused as to how you could be too good to be in the post-season. I think that's all the article is missing is an overview.
- Explained a little more in the lead. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Considering this is an article about Fulham playing Aston Villa, we could link both clubs in the prose as well as the lede.
- Could we unfloat the reference for the statistics? Just a quick commentary as to what is below would suffice.
- Strictly it's not floating, it's added to the table caption which is a common way of doing such things. After all, a commentary might be "This is a table of the match statistics. Or else it'll be explaining the table in words, which seems fruitless.
- Lee Vilenski I've addressed your concerns above, let me know if there's anything from here of the 2019 GAN that needs further examination. 2017 is nominated and 2016 (obv) is next up for the "TRM treatment" (tm), so the sooner I sort out the gremlins, the better. Cheers and thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- All seems fine to me. I have a few projects of my own I'm working on, but I'll pick up a suitable final article and work on it soon as well. Promoting. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski I've addressed your concerns above, let me know if there's anything from here of the 2019 GAN that needs further examination. 2017 is nominated and 2016 (obv) is next up for the "TRM treatment" (tm), so the sooner I sort out the gremlins, the better. Cheers and thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
GA Review
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
edit- Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
- TRM - not much to look at above, but I'd like a couple bits on what the tournament is, as it's not super explainatory outside of the lede. On hold. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Lee Vilenski, I'm just going to make sure the 2019 edition passes GAN and then I'll address your concerns here, in an attempt to sweep up all concerns as I work my way back through the years. Presumably my 1987 article will be stupendously good!! Oh, and this is a "good topic" klaxon by the way should you wish to help out on anything going forward, there are another 29 articles just for the "final" topic.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sure I can help with that... Considering my own 2019-20 snooker season Good Topic is now on hold due to the virus. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski also I've tried to address the concerns over the league table placement by expanding the lead in each article. Is that working for you? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- That does the trick for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski also I've tried to address the concerns over the league table placement by expanding the lead in each article. Is that working for you? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sure I can help with that... Considering my own 2019-20 snooker season Good Topic is now on hold due to the virus. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Lee Vilenski, I'm just going to make sure the 2019 edition passes GAN and then I'll address your concerns here, in an attempt to sweep up all concerns as I work my way back through the years. Presumably my 1987 article will be stupendously good!! Oh, and this is a "good topic" klaxon by the way should you wish to help out on anything going forward, there are another 29 articles just for the "final" topic.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- TRM - not much to look at above, but I'd like a couple bits on what the tournament is, as it's not super explainatory outside of the lede. On hold. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)