Talk:Ipswich Town F.C. in European football/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 21:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
It contains copyright infringements -
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Refs seem clean. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lede

Is it worth adding a short description, or at least importing the one from wikidata? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with how to do this as I have stringently avoided WikiData for some time now, but I've added something. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we link the first division? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bit too much WP:WEIGHT for the first season in the lede, considering there's ten years covered by the same amount of prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's correct. Firstly it was the first season in Europe which made it a huge deal. It set a number of records which was unique to that season. And the amount of prose for this season (316 words), compares okay with the following six seasons (1534 words) really quite satisfactorily. I'm not clear where "there's ten years covered by the same amount of prose" comes from? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth starting the article with the title win, which is the most notable part. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this comment, sorry? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The club have never been beaten at home - the club has been undefeated at home... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I revised it slightly. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General

There's a redlink to the 62-63 season, but the article is at 1962–63 Ipswich Town F.C. season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Duh. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
equalling European football record for both the highest individual match score - could we get a cite for this specifically? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was already there later on, but I've repeated it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 14–1 aggregate score also equalled the European record previously - what type of record? Total goals, scoring 14? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It equalled the "aggregate score" record. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but for what? Is it for the most goals scored by one team over two legs, the biggest winning score, highest total goals scored over two legs? Might be worth being a little more specific. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the paras in the Robson era could be split. They are rather large. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I split them into three large paras so I don't think it's a major problem. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split a bit more... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could we link Mick Mills in the second image caption? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few duplinks, worth going through Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
- Not much to go at here, TRM. Great work - I'd like to see the smaller paragraphs. If you could address a bit of the above I think we're done. :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lee Vilenski thanks for the review, I've addressed/responded to all comments above, one minor query outstanding from my point of view. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cheers, I made one comment, but other than that, looks fine to me. Good work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]