Talk:Broadcasting and the foundation of the Premier League/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: No links found.
Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.
Checking against the GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- "a company formed by the merger of Rupert Murdoch's Sky Television and British Satellite Broadcasting" - did Murdoch own British Satellite Broadcasting? This sentence makes it sound like he owned both anyway
- "but their case was thrown out of the High Court" - link High Court of Justice
- "Arsenal, Aston Villa, Everton, Leeds United, Liverpool" - link Everton FC and Leeds United
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No original research found.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I couldn't find any issues with this article when reading through it. It is comprehensive, well written and well sourced. Since it meets the criteria, I see no reason to put this on hold. Nice work JAGUAR 19:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)