Jump to content

Talk:1927 FA Charity Shield/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 21:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • "There was a large " -there were, you sound like David Beckham!
  • "With only a few minutes remaining on the clock, Cardiff won a corner kick and from the cross, Len Davies tapped the ball into the net to put them ahead. " -needs an "and" here
  • " to form Corinthian-Casuals" =the Corinthian-Casuals?
Background
  • "Corinthian announced their team a few days prior to the game,[9] but subsequently goalkeeper Benjamin Howard Baker was replaced by A.M. Russell, who normally played for Cambridge University A.F.C.." -try "Corinthian announced their team a few days prior to the game, though goalkeeper Benjamin Howard Baker was subsequently replaced by A.M. Russell, who normally played for Cambridge University A.F.C.."
Match
  • "The Corinthians gained a corner kick early on, but Cardiff cleared. This was followed up by a further attack by the amateurs, but R.G. Jenkins' shot went straight to Tom Farquharson in the Cardiff goal. Cardiff attacked twice in quick succession, but both chances were squandered. " -rep of but, in fact the whole paragraph uses it excessively, needs a good copyedit to partly avoid it.
Post match

Is Post match or "Aftermath" preferrable?

@Miyagawa:♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for reviewing! - I've made those edits; I've reduced the "buts" by about two thirds overall. I double checked the Football WikiProject's MOS for matches at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Matches and realised that "Post match" should have been "Post-match". Miyagawa (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Looks adequate enough, given that this is the shield, not the cup. Pity they couldn't do it again!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1927_FA_Charity_Shield/GA1&oldid=714559968"