Talk:1953 FA Charity Shield/GA1

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

Reviewer: Naz (talk · contribs) 14:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Commencing review
Hi, I will review this article. Please to advise me if there is anything else I need to be knowing about it. Thank you. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  14:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

A lot of copyediting was needing to be done and I am thinking the article should not have been a nomination. The improvements are correcting only minor issues however but many of them. I am leaving this for the time being. Thank you. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  14:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for copyediting; I've reverted one of your edits because it doesn't fall in line with British English spelling. I'm not sure 'copyediting' should be a stumbling block for a GA review, given you have made necessary changes. I nominated it based on the criteria and think that's as comprehensive and well-sourced the article can be at present, regards. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Placing on hold
This being quite a short article, and I am understanding that there is little information available and a very limited scope in a single match, nevertheless I am feeling that there should be pre-match and post-match sections. The fixture as it is being played now is a curtain-raiser but this one in 1953 was played quite a long time into the season. I would be liking to read something, no more than a summary of course, about the form of and any problems encountered by the two clubs before the game and how they were performing in the league to that point. A similar section about how they fared in the remainder of the season, especially anything in the immediate aftermath of the charity match, I would also be looking to read. Where did they finish in the league and how well did they do in the FA Cup? This is in order to broaden the coverage which is being a key criterion at GAR. The article is well-written and I am happy with everything else but to let you broaden it, I am placing the review on hold for seven days. Thank you. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  13:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added sentences on their final positions, but I feel the 'background' section sufficiently covers what happened before the game without going into unnecessary detail. IMO, writing 'Arsenal were sixth in the league game coming into the match' is pointless because it's a Charity Shield fixture and how they were doing before the match has little relevance. If they started the season poorly and journalists commented that they were favourites to lose then it would be worth including, but I can't find a single match preview source that mentions it. Furthermore, the criteria states "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." Lemonade51 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is fine. As you are saying, we must avoid unnecessary detail. I am now finding the article satisfactory and am passing it as a good article. Thank you, Lemonade51. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  13:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)