Talk:1999 Football League First Division play-off final/GA1

GA Review

Passing GA

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.

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 20:47, 31 October 2020 (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 may 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

It 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

Prose

Lede

Birmingham City and Ipswich Town were the losing semi-finalists. - this feels a little tacked on.
Well it's a short sentence but in the past I've been asked to include that detail in the lead. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
inception in 1992. - can we link that season? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also meant that Watford had secured promotion for the second successive season, - This was Watford's second successive promotion...Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased a little. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Watford finished their following season bottom of the Premiership, 12 points from safety, and losing 26 of their 38 matches, and were relegated back to the First Division. - and, and. Watford finished their following season bottom of the Premiership, losing 26 of their 38 matches finishing 12 points from safety and were relegated back to the First Division. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to my taste. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General

Both therefore missed - should there not be some commas here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No preference either way, several FAs have this phrasing without commas, I'd say it was down to personal preference. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
taking the match into extra time. - is it worth having a note about away goals only counting after extra time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's self-evident from the prose. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Watford's Alon Hazan put them ahead before Holland's miss condemned Birmingham City - condemned is a weird word here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn't. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
England national football team manager. - can we condense? Just England national team manager, or even just England manager. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"There are two ways to go to Wembley. You either go as Watford did against Everton ... just happy to be there. Or you go to win." - He wasn't the manager at the time, though? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he was. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fractured hip in January 1999 - the year is a little irrelevent, as we are talking about a singular season Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The match was estimated in the media to be worth around £10 million to the winning team - might be worth expanding to denote this was due to the following season's prize money, broadcast rights, ect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source in this case doesn't say that. You and I know that's the case, but without an RS to back it up, it would be WP:SYNTH to suggest why. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The referee for the match was Terry Heilbron from Newton Aycliffe - might be worth saying where that is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the second minute, Claus Jensen's pass was cleared by Watford, and a minute later a Bolton corner was also defended. These don't seem like particularly important moments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I get panned for not including enough detail and now this isn't important enough to include! I've just included details that I could find. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel your pain. I just don't know how a pass being cleared is particularly notable is all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a glossary term for "one-on-one"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, linked. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
link BBC. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who at the BBC said that? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source has no author in this case. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link free kick on first usage. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski thanks for the review, I've addressed and/or responded to your comments above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few comments, placing on hold. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. I've added a short description, as I forgot to ask for one, otherwise, all seems in order - I'm passing to GA status. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:52, 31 October 2020 (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.