Talk:1997 Football League First Division play-off final/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay taking a look...you know the drill :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead is well-written and flows nicely (neither issue below is a deal-breaker as such):

• Not sure how strongly you feel about it, but I reckon the second and third paras are better combined. there is a natural flow of information. Looks a little choppy as is but then again I am looking at it on a honking great widescreen....

  I think the third para is different information. First is background, second is match, third is consequence, and on my laptop it looks fine (and I have a reasonably sizeable horizontal resolution. So I think I'll leave it, especially based on the fact that my experiences of general readership is that most people use (much) narrower resolution than me. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  fair point Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Is it worth putting player positions in para 2 as descriptors?

  Perhaps, but I'm always wary of seas of blue. If need be, the reader can refer to the details section to find out the positions. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In the body...

• I'd put " the second tier of the English football league system," inside an unspaced mdash or spaced ndash rather than commas but not a strong issue...

  En-dashes (because I don't like em-dashes, too long). The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Again, player positions as descriptors (not a deal-breaker)...

  Similar to above, the conflation of player's names and their positions usually ends up in a sea of blue. Rephrasing to avoid that often results in more awkward prose. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• The match was estimated in the media to be worth between £8–10 million to the winning team. - needs to be "The match was estimated in the media to be worth between £8 and 10 million to the winning team." or "The match was estimated in the media to be worth £8–10 million to the winning team."

  Gone for the latter. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise reads very well and is on track for GA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - just quibbling really Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Casliber cheers, thanks very much for the review so far. I've addressed your comments. I wondered how you felt about the use of the video hosted by one of the club's official websites to provide a much more comprehensive match summary? I have a couple of FAs-in-waiting for which I could access official footage but didn't want to go to all the trouble/time if it was going to get to FAC and be blown away. If there's anything else for the GAN, please don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay - my take on that would be (a) are they reliable sources? Answer:yes, though primary. Which means they should be okay for straightforward observations and on big claims/inferences. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)