Talk:2015–16 FA Cup qualifying rounds

2015–16 FA Cup qualifying rounds was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 15, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Football: England / English non-league / Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the English non-league task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015–16 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Images

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)[reply]

GA Toolbox

Peer review.

Lead is too short for an article this size,should be 3-4 sentences.

Copyright vio

No issues. Y

Disambig

No issues. Y

External links

"The FA cup archive" link is dead according to the too!.

Sources

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 - N

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

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

@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)[reply]