Talk:1959–60 Burnley F.C. season

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1959–60 Burnley F.C. season article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Football: England / Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

1959–60 Burnley F.C. season is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 22, 2023.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 4, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed
May 6, 2022	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1959–60 Burnley F.C. season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WA8MTWAYC, I'll be taking up the review for this article which I will present shortly. Hopefully, my feedback will be helpful and I will get to learn something interesting in the process. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WA8MTWAYC, I am impressed. This is a very well research and well written article. It already meets the good article criteria so I'm going to promote. I have still left some comments below regarding a couple minor issues. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate Thank you very much for your time and review, it's really appreciated! I've addressed your comments. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I couldn't access the two books but seeing as there are no issues with original research with respect to the rest of the references, I am going to assume they have been accurately represented in the article.
Not sure if "protagonists" is an appropiate term to use. I would suggest using "contenders" instead.
"... before beating Nottingham Forest—last season's FA Cup winners—8–0 at Turf Moor." This reads awkwardly, I would suggest rearranging it into someting like " ... before beating last season's ..."
I would recommend removing the refs beside the "Results" subheadings and incorporating them in their respective charts in the manner you have done with "Partial league table". I know they aren't technically subheadings but bolded text but they act like subheadings.

Assessment

Comprehension: The article is very well written.

Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is good.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article is complaint with the manual of style.	Pass

Verifiability: The article meets standards for verifiability.

Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article is cited with in-line citations.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources used are reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research was found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violations found.	Pass

Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive.

Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article has a comprehensive coverage.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article does not deviate from its subject.	Pass

Neutrality: The article is neutral.

Pass

Notes	Result
Complaint with the policy on neutral point of view.	Pass

Stability: The article is stable.

Pass

Notes	Result
No content dispute, edit warring or major changes.	Pass

Illustration: The article is well illustrated.

Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images are tagged with their appropriate copyright statuses.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Caption and use are good.	Pass