Talk:1873–74 Scottish Cup/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ...however only 14 would play a match after two withdrawals. - aargh, either both words or both numbers...but "2" looks funny here I concede...


 * Of the 16 teams to enter the first round; Southern were the only team who would not play a single match and – as of 2021 – only Dumbarton, Kilmarnock and Queen's Park still regularly compete in the competition. would go better in Teams section.
 * ✅ Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd actually combine the Format and Teams into one section
 * ✅ Changed the headings hierarchy so the teams section is under the format section. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have any more information on the establishment of the cup - membership of the teams - rationale for establishment - timing etc.
 * ✅ Background section added. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * teams actually better in prose format and maybe a discussion (why no teams from Edinburgh?)
 * ✅ I'll change to prose by early next week, I might not get a lot of time to work on it over the next day or two. My suspicion that no Edinburgh teams were involved is because the advert intended to establish the SFA was posted in a Glasgow newspaper and also that the three early teams to compete from Edinburgh (3rd Edinburgh RV, Hearts and Hibernian) weren't formed until 1874/1875 but I'm not sure how you would reference that when I don't have anything that says it directly. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed - can't put in what ain't in any sources...take yer time...is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Got more time today than I thought. I've changed it to prose and checked the books I've got but unfortunately, none of them goes into detail about the teams that did/didn't enter. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:04, 15 July 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: nice read overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)