Talk:Brabourne Stadium/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: BrianDeeG (talk · contribs) 19:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC) I will review the article. I have given it a quick, initial read but can make no comments at this stage. I am on a short holiday at present and will be able to pursue the process in a few days time. --Brian (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Initial survey
[edit]I have immediate concerns that will have to be addressed before I can perform an in-depth review. There is no bibliography as required by WP:MOS and this must list all books used for reference. The style of the citations must then be changed to, for example, <ref>Knox, pp.152–153.</ref>. The way that the online citations has been handled is fine except that these heavily outnumber the book references and I see this as a concern. I would expect an article about a 75-year old stadium to be based mainly on book references and this needs to be addressed too.
"See also" sections are generally deprecated so you should find some way of incorporating those articles into the main narrative if possible.
In the "further reading" section, the first item should be an "external link" while, in any case, it is incorrectly titled and it does not link to a list of matches. Given the titles of the second and third items, I would expect these to provide citations in the article and they should be used instead of online alternatives where possible. The fourth title may be similar and, as a minor point, the author's name is a redlink which needs to be addressed. I noticed another couple of redlinks elsewhere in the article. Another minor point is the failure to comply with WP:CRIC re its style guide as "Test" is written "test".
I will put the article ON HOLD for the time being. --Brian (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Failed
[edit]There has been no activity on the article or any response to the concerns I raised a week ago. I am therefore failing the article and would suggest that the points above are addressed as the next stage of the article's development. --Brian (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)