Jump to content

Talk:2001 Football League Second Division play-off final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2001 Football League Second Division play-off final has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2021Good article nomineeListed
September 19, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
January 24, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 20, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the owner of Walsall F.C. described victory at the 2001 Football League Second Division play-off Final as the greatest day in the club's history?
Current status: Good article

Youtube as a reliable reference?

[edit]

86.172.126.101 (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

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
This review is transcluded from Talk:2001 Football League Second Division play-off Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 15:44, 31 January 2021 (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 (talkcontribs)

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]
  • 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. -
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

General

[edit]
Lee Vilenski thanks, all addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Review meta comments

[edit]
Lee Vilenski you may have forgotten about this? No rush. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is on my to-do list - don't worry. Apologies for the delay! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. As I said, no rush. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:49, 13 February 2021 (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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk20:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by The Rambling Man (talk). Self-nominated at 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi The Rambling Man, review follows: article 5x expanded from 30 January; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I didn't notice any issues with overly close paraphrasing in a spotcheck on sources; hook is mentioned in article and checks out to the source cited; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks fine to me, I'm really enjoying reading this current series of articles on these finals - Dumelow (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]