Talk:1990 Football League Third Division play-off final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1990 Football League Third Division play-off final 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 4, 2021Good article nomineeListed
September 19, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
January 24, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 29, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that despite losing the 1990 Football League Third Division play-off Final, Tranmere Rovers were temporarily promoted to the Second Division?
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by The Rambling Man (talk). Self-nominated at 21:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1990 Football League Third Division play-off Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 17:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will review MWright96 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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:

Lead[edit]

Route to the final[edit]

Background[edit]

Summary[edit]

Post-match[edit]

References[edit]

Am putting the review on hold to allow the nominator to address or query the points raised above MWright96 (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MWright96 sorry for the delay, I've addressed everything but the first and it's a bit of a bugger to fix unless you have any great ideas? Cheers for the review, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Now promoting to GA class MWright96 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]