Talk:MLS Cup 2005/GA1

Latest comment: 5 years ago by SounderBruce in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 11:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply


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 (talkcontribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

edit
edit

Prose

edit

Lede

edit

Venue

edit

Road to final

edit

Broadcating

edit

Match

edit

Post-match

edit

Notes & References

edit

GA Review

edit
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:  

Article placed on hold, with a few issues raised above Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review. I've answered some of your questions above and made appropriate changes where I saw fit. I'll get working on that last uncited sentence, but finding a reference might be difficult. SounderBruce 19:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sure, I've done another read through. A lot of my issues I would suggest are from a cultural divide on my part (which I apologies for), and I'll pass this article now. Nothing above that's left really has any bearing on if the article is a GA or not. Thank you for your swift response, and have a nice day. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Also, I see you've promoted a lot of these MLS Cup articles to GA status, good luck with the remaining if you choose to promote these. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
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.