Jump to content

Talk:2005 Football League One play-off final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2005 Football League One 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
March 10, 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 19, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that some of the Sheffield Wednesday team participated in a conga on the M4 motorway after winning the 2005 Football League One play-off Final?
Current status: Good article

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 The C of E (talk09:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by The Rambling Man (talk). Self-nominated at 21:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: A good article with two good hooks. I can't decide between them, so shall leave both up for the promoting editor to choose between. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions

[edit]

Hi TRM, quick question 1) "before Porter's lob was too high." - is something missing here or just me? 2) The conga link should be to conga line? (If so, also in Queue 1.) JennyOz (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) no I think the lob was too high. (2) Yes, I didn't link conga at all, I'm not sure when that happened. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amakuru Can you pls do same piped dab in tomorrow's queue 1 hook? JennyOz (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Amakuru. JennyOz (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2005 Football League One play-off Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 18:40, 6 March 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 all done/responded to. Cheers for the review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:04, 8 March 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]