Talk:History of Brentford F.C./GA1
Appearance
(Redirected from Talk:History of Brentford F.C. (1986–present)/GA1)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Taking a look now.....will make straightforward copyedits as I go and drop queries below...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Any reason why the history articles are divided at 1954 and 1986?
- No as far as I can see. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I think it was pre-decided somewhere....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Any commentary on why McLintock couldn't deliver?Done added some info
Brentford flirted with the playoff positions during the 1987–88 season and in 1988–89,[4] a late run almost took the club into the playoffs- try not to use "playoffs" twice in the one sentenceDone
but an unbeaten run in the second half of the season...- traditional here to say how many matches...Done
Perryman resigned on the eve of the 1990–91 season...- do we know why?Done
and captain Terry Evans suffered a long-term injury on the opening day of the season.- may as well say what the injury wasDone
Just two defeats in 11 matches put the Bees up to 10th by the end of 1992- am I missing something here? You didn't mention a poor start just before this...? Done
The Bees were easily defeated 3–1 in the fifth round by Charlton Athletic, but too many draws late in the season dropped the club to a 3rd-place finish..'' - "but" is odd here as they are both bad things so I can't see the contrast...? {[done}}
- Finally - the trick is to avoid these articles turning into a chronological sequence of factoids - any analysis on why any manager did well or poorly, or any other bits on particularly good players would be good to add if you can find them.
A promising article with alot of heart in it...needs some polishing but eminently doable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Casliber: I have addressed all of your concerns. Would you be able to take a look over the article and seem what the situation is now? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- Manual of Style compliance:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
- Focused:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
- Fair representation without bias:
5. Reasonably stable?
- No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
- Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
- Pass or Fail: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)