Talk:Thames Valley Royals proposal

Thames Valley Royals proposal has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 11, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thames Valley Royals proposal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Thames Valley Royals proposal appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Oxford United and Reading football clubs nearly merged in 1983 to form "Thames Valley Royals"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thames Valley Royals proposal.

Wikipedia

Berkshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: England Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thames Valley Royals proposal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okay - I remember this when it happened - will read and copyedit as I go and jot queries below...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now where was I .....hmmm....

'~~'it nearly went through - a tad colloquial-sounding....but I can't think of a better phrase - "it nearly came to fruition"? hmmmm~~

OK —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~it derailed at the last minute~~ ~~- " it was derailed at the last minute " (more used to seeing it in passive tense...)~~

OK —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P~~robably replace at least one "Maxwell" with a pronoun in para 2 of lead.~~

Yes —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if we can improve the structure of the lead - currently it has para 1 = very potted summary, paras 2 & 3 are more details....but this makes the article have a three-tiered level of detail. I think maybe rearranging the lead strictly chronologically would be better - otherwise it comes across as repetitive.

Okay. I have trimmed it down and put it more chronologically; what do you think now? —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"~~There was fear in the faces of the older players," he said. "It was a feeling of incredulity, confusion, worry and fear."~~ ~~- bit laboured using "fear" twice in the one sentence....~~

Yes —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~The residents of neither Didcot nor Wallingford elicited much interest~~ ~~- "The residents of neither Didcot nor Wallingford showed much interest" You elicit something in something - i.e. someone eliciting interest out of the locals...~~

Ok, thanks for this —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

- nice and tight/interesting read, well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Casliber! —Cliftonian (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]