Talk:1891–92 Sheffield United F.C. season/GA1

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

Reviewer: The C of E (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'll review this, Overall I think it is well written. Since most of the sources are offline, I am going to AGF on them. I do think that there are a few prose issues that should be sorted out before I can pass this:


 * The first line of the second lead paragraph should have a comma after Woolstinholm
 * Done.
 * No need to link Woolstinholm when he's already been linked earlier in the main body of text
 * Not sure where you mean?
 * It's where you linked him in the lead and then linked to him again in the first paragraph.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 13:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that calling the accusations acrimonious fulfills WP:LABEL
 * It's how it's described in the source but removed.
 * It seems a bit of a violation of WP:PEA to describe teams as strong
 * Altered
 * Per MOS:OPED, losses should not be described as disappointing.
 * Altered
 * The last sentence of the Northern League section, "They" is used a bit much, might be better to say that United wanted to review the ballot papers to clarify.
 * Revised.
 * The Club can't get angry as a non-living thing, don't you mean that it angered the club directors?
 * Revised.
 * I would also remove the word further after that as the article at the moment only says that the decision annoyed them.
 * Not sure I agree - the initial decision to place United in Div 2 and Wednesday in Div 1 angered the directors, the FA's refusal to release the papers also angered them and made the situation worse, so a description of it 'angering them further' seems aposite?
 * Again per OPED, I'd change "easily dispatched"
 * Altered.
 * Kilnhurst should be linked when first mentioned.
 * Kilnhurst F.C. don't have a WP article (and don't meet football notability so will never have) so there's nothing to link to. I omitted a wiki link to avoid a perpetual redlink
 * In the results, It should really have the city next to the ground name, otherwise who would know where South Bank were from for example?
 * Done

Otherwise, picture licenses are fine (As I'd expect them to be given the time period) Just need to iron out these issues and I'll clear it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've updated most of the above but have a couple of further queries / points. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated the last outstanding point. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All OK. We have a new Good Article. Congratulations.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)