Talk:2015–16 FA Cup qualifying rounds/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I will be starting the review of this article. First thing I notice is that this really looks like a list, or list of lists even. I am not sure if Feature List might not be more appropriate? With the small amount of actual prose in the article it may be a challenge. MPJ-US 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Images
[edit]None at all. Not a deal breaker but is there nothing at all? An appropriate team photo or anything? MPJ-US 15:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
GA Toolbox
[edit]- Peer review.
- Lead is too short for an article this size,should be 3-4 sentences.
- Copyright vio
- No issues.
- Disambig
- No issues.
- External links
- "The FA cup archive" link is dead according to the too!.
Sources
[edit]- All sources that are web based should have an "accessdate" listed
- Is the FA Cup Qualifying Rounds the same as the "FA Youth Cup"?? Reference #2 (in the Calendar) section refers to it as such, but the text does not mention it.
- Is the tournament also referred to as the "Emirates FA Cup"?
- Other than which teams were in the "Extra preliminary round" are totally unsourced. Reference 3 only states names, not results, club levels or anything else. That needs to be totally sourced.
- the "Preliminary round" does not present any sources at all for the massive amount of information listed except for one match out of 160+ matches
- "First Qualifying Round" - unsourced as well except for two results out of the 116+ matches
- "Second Qualifying Round" - unsourced as well except 1 out of 80
- "Third Qualifying Round" - Totally unsourced
- "Fourth Qualifying Round" - Totally unsourced
- "Competition Proper" - Totally unsourced
- Overall -
- This presents a ton of results, data etc. but very few sources and the ones that are presented are all primary sources (the Football Association or the clubs themselves). Only third party source is for the broadcasting rights, 1% of the entire article.
General
[edit]- Sources should not be in the lead, they should be cited in the body of the text where the fact is stated as well. No information should only be in the lead.
- Like a lot of articles the lead here is treated as part of the article, the actual body of the article jumps straight past any sort of introduction, allowing the lead to serve that purpose. Think of if this way, the lead is a movie trailer and the rest of the article is the actual movie. the viewer should not HAVE to see the trailer to understand the movie, just like here the reader should not HAVE to read the lead to understand the actual article as the lead is a summary.
Overall
[edit]@MOO36: - WIth the tables being the majority of the article and being almost totally unsourced I am going to stop my review now and give it an immediate fail. It does not meet criteria 2 "Verifiable with no originl research". Simply put this article needs sources, sources' and sources. Third party if possible but at least sources that actually support the claims made, it has next to none. MPJ-US 21:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)