Talk:2011 D.C. United season/GA1

GA Review

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: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 01:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   ;;The 2011 D.C. United season was the club's 17th year of existence, their 16th season in Major League Soccer, and their 16th consecutive season in the top-flight of American soccer. D.C. United will be trying to salvage a poor showing last season, finishing at the bottom of the MLS standings. The season covers the period of November 1, 2010 through October 31, 2011. inconsistency in tense.

   Several major offseason acquisions were made "acquisions"?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Quite a lot of the article is uncited and there are outstanding maintenance tags, dating back to October.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is very little prose here, just links to other articles and a surfeit of tables

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images used.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article does not meet the GA criteria, it is mostly a collection of statistics, needs more narrative prose and less tables, not listed.

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.