Talk:1927 FA Cup final/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 07:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Not much to complain about, good job:


 * "and a further 15,000 fans listed " -listened?
 * Ooops, yep. Fixed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The phrase "back to square one" was created during the broadcast; square one was the term used to describe an area nearest to one of the goal" -seriously? Is that accurate? You'd think it older than that.
 * So did I! But, yes, apparently as this was the first game broadcast they published this grid system in the Radio Times that week (although I haven't been able to track down the magazine to confirm this as the website mentioning that isn't reliable enough for Wiki purposes) and would refer to a numbered grid location for where the ball was. Square one happened to be by one of the goals, so when the team played the ball back to the goalkeeper (as they would prior to the rules changes for back passes in the 90's), the phrase "back to square one" (i.e. the start of a play) was born. Miyagawa (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "and a chance was had by Hardy which appears to shake Lewis " -appeared?
 * Corrected as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for reviewing. I have to admit when the contest started, this was my #1 article target as I felt there would be a lot out there about the game. Miyagawa (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did just find this on the BBC website. It doesn't have the grid, but it does mention "the plan" being on another page. Miyagawa (talk) 17:09, 14 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: This might further benefit from somebody at the Football project giving it a good going over but it looks decent enough to me, excellent job! ♦  Dr. Blofeld  17:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)