Talk:Cypriot Second Division/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  19:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the 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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead is too short and doesn't summarise the article per WP:LEAD - it should be expanded two at least one large paragraph or two smaller ones

   " After their reform and their re-integration in the CFA they had to play in the Second Division in order to be promoted to the First Division, as is done" - I don't understand 'as is done'?

   "It was the only time from the unofficial period of the competition that a team promoted from the Second Division to the First Division." - unsourced

   "Since 1952–53 season, the second Division teams are taking part in the Cypriot Cup" - incorrect tense. Try Since 1952–53 season, the second Division teams took part in the Cypriot Cup

   " In some seasons during 60s and 70s" - 1960s and 1970s

   Structure almost entirely unsourced

   "Fourteen clubs are competing in the league, playing each other twice, once at home and once away for a total of 26 games per team. The top three teams are promoted to the Cypriot First Division and the bottom three are relegated to the Cypriot Third Division." - needs a source

   I would recommend converting the Points system section into prose as opposed to bullet points. Despite this, would it be worth keeping it?

   The harvrefs are broken. Also, what is the difference with the Sources section and the Bibliography section? Shouldn't they be one section?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No original research found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm really sorry to do this but this doesn't meet the GA criteria in its current state. The harvrefs are broken, the lead needs expanding and most claims are left unsourced. Please understand that I hate quickfailing articles, and will be happy to review this again if you decide to renominate. JAGUAR  19:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)