Talk:1927 FA Charity Shield/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 21:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I will do this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * "There was a large " -there were, you sound like David Beckham!
 * "With only a few minutes remaining on the clock, Cardiff won a corner kick and from the cross, Len Davies tapped the ball into the net to put them ahead. " -needs an "and" here
 * " to form Corinthian-Casuals" =the Corinthian-Casuals?
 * Background
 * "Corinthian announced their team a few days prior to the game,[9] but subsequently goalkeeper Benjamin Howard Baker was replaced by A.M. Russell, who normally played for Cambridge University A.F.C.." -try "Corinthian announced their team a few days prior to the game, though goalkeeper Benjamin Howard Baker was subsequently replaced by A.M. Russell, who normally played for Cambridge University A.F.C.."


 * Match
 * "The Corinthians gained a corner kick early on, but Cardiff cleared. This was followed up by a further attack by the amateurs, but R.G. Jenkins' shot went straight to Tom Farquharson in the Cardiff goal. Cardiff attacked twice in quick succession, but both chances were squandered. " -rep of but, in fact the whole paragraph uses it excessively, needs a good copyedit to partly avoid it.

Is Post match or "Aftermath" preferrable?
 * Post match

♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing! - I've made those edits; I've reduced the "buts" by about two thirds overall. I double checked the Football WikiProject's MOS for matches at WikiProject Football/Matches and realised that "Post match" should have been "Post-match". Miyagawa (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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: Looks adequate enough, given that this is the shield, not the cup. Pity they couldn't do it again!♦  Dr. Blofeld  14:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)