Talk:1885–86 West Bromwich Albion F.C. season/GA1

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

Reviewer: Big  Dom  07:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead is very short, maybe it could be expanded a bit with just a couple of details from here and there in the article.
 * Is there a reference to support the claim that Stoney Lane was paid for by playing friendly matches?
 * In the (50p), link to Penny (British decimal coin) for readers outside the UK
 * The prose in the Friendlies section definitely needs expanding. The table of results should be used to complement the prose, not replace it. At the moment, there are four sentences of prose for over 30 matches. You need to write about how many friendly matches the team played, the biggest wins, heaviest defeats, top goal-scorers (if available) and so on.
 * Footnotes 1, 3 and 6 need references. Also, footnote 5 just seems to be a repetition of the latter half of note 2.

That's all for now. I'll put this one on hold for seven days so the comments can be addressed. Big Dom  07:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed all the points, other than the lead. The lead is short, but so is the article (it looks longer because of the tables but the amount of prose isn't huge) so I think it sums it up fairly well and I'm not too sure what else to add. If you can suggest any specific points that you think are missing from the lead, I will gladly include them. The prose in the friendlies section can't be expanded much more as all I have to work with is a list of results with no goalscorers. Will you be including some kind of checklist of the Good Article Criteria, as it is good to have each point explicitly covered off, even if it is just "No problems here" for some. I don't know if this is mandatory, but I have done so in the couple of GA reviews I did (example: Talk:The PTA Disbands/GA1). Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I added a little bit of extra info on Stoney Lane (that I'd missed before but found while I was fixing the references). Also we have a slight problem as my sources indicate that the 1886 FA Cup Final did not have extra time played, thus contradicting the Featured List List of FA Cup winners. I've left a message at that article's talk page so hopefully we can get the confusion cleared up quickly. --Jameboy (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work on the extra bits you've added. I've expanded the lead a bit, mostly by just bulking up what you'd already written, just to make it look a bit more substantial. Big  Dom  15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * Criteria check


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: