Jump to content

Talk:2006 Football League Championship play-off final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2006 Football League Championship play-off final 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 16, 2020Good article nomineeListed
December 24, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
May 23, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
January 22, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Featured article

Sources

[edit]

Preview

[edit]

Review

[edit]

Legacy

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2006 Football League Championship play-off Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:  — Amakuru (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "the second tier of English football, to the Premier League" - according to our article for the season in question, it was known as the "FA Premier League" at that time... (although in day-to-day usage, it was confusingly called the "FA Barclays Premiership"). Some fool tried to get that situation changed about six years ago, but apparently the FA part was officially dropped at the beginning of the 07-08 season.
  • Might be worth mentioning the losing semi-finalists in the lead. I've seen other articles do this.
  • "which assured Watford promotion to the Premier League" - does this mean that the third goal was deemed to be the "decisive" one, after which there was no possibility of a Leeds fight-back? Although perhaps obvious, for an 84th-minute third goal, it does seem a slightly subjective opinion and should maybe be cited and attributed.
  • "both teams were relegated from their respective leagues" - given that the subsequent three sentences go on to say "they were relegated to the third tier of English football" and "they were relegated back to the Championship", this opening sentence sounds slightly repetitive to me. Might be worth either dropping that part, or using different phrasing.
  • "and was replaced He was Dennis Wise" - not sure what's going on here!
  • "and were deducted ten points; they finished the season bottom of the league" - did the dropping of the points cause the relegation, or would they have gone down anyway? Last we heard, they were second from bottom.

More to come!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the above bar the final point, which doesn't need to be covered in such detail in the lead. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more point about the lead (and also the first part of the body) - is the assertion "The top two teams of the 2005–06 Football League Championship season gained automatic promotion to the Premier League, while the clubs placed from third to sixth place in the table took part in play-off semi-finals" actually sourced anywhere? Refs [1] and [2] seem to just give the league table without direct indication of who the playoff and promoted teams were. I guess we can sort of infer the situation from the teams who played in the semis, but might be better to cite it directly somewhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Soccerway link does it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Route to the final section:

Match:

Amakuru all done. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-match:

  • The section uses the term "Premiership" four times, but should probably stick with "Premier League" per the usage in the rest of the article. I've just noticed there's one example of this in the lead as well.
Two of those are in quotes so I can't change them, the others I have done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really see anything else here. I'll have a quick look over the refs, and then should be good to go after that.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs:

  • No real issues here. The indirect link to the book page seems a bit redundant, given that only one page from the book is used in the article, but that's just a free choice by the article author so no complaints. Refs look impeccable in layout otherwise, and seem to be accurately used in the article from a couple of examples I've looked at.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru cheers, anything else? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, all looks good now. Passing. checkY  — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]