Talk:1999 Football League First Division play-off final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article1999 Football League First Division play-off final is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 31, 2020Good article nomineeListed
May 23, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
June 16, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
January 22, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Featured article

Sources[edit]

Play-offs[edit]

Pre-match[edit]

Match[edit]

Post-match[edit]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



This review is transcluded from Talk:1999 Football League First Division play-off Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 20:47, 31 October 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 may 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 (talkcontribs)

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

Prose[edit]

Lede[edit]

  • Birmingham City and Ipswich Town were the losing semi-finalists. - this feels a little tacked on.
    Well it's a short sentence but in the past I've been asked to include that detail in the lead. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • inception in 1992. - can we link that season? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also meant that Watford had secured promotion for the second successive season, - This was Watford's second successive promotion...Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrased a little. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watford finished their following season bottom of the Premiership, 12 points from safety, and losing 26 of their 38 matches, and were relegated back to the First Division. - and, and. Watford finished their following season bottom of the Premiership, losing 26 of their 38 matches finishing 12 points from safety and were relegated back to the First Division. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded to my taste. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

Lee Vilenski thanks for the review, I've addressed and/or responded to your comments above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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:

Review meta comments[edit]

Only a few comments, placing on hold. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problem. I've added a short description, as I forgot to ask for one, otherwise, all seems in order - I'm passing to GA status. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.