Talk:1959–60 Burnley F.C. season/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello WA8MTWAYC, I'll be taking up the review for this article which I will present shortly. Hopefully, my feedback will be helpful and I will get to learn something interesting in the process. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am impressed. This is a very well research and well written article. It already meets the good article criteria so I'm going to promote. I have still left some comments below regarding a couple minor issues. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your time and review, it's really appreciated! I've addressed your comments. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * I couldn't access the two books but seeing as there are no issues with original research with respect to the rest of the references, I am going to assume they have been accurately represented in the article.
 * Not sure if "protagonists" is an appropiate term to use. I would suggest using "contenders" instead.
 * "... before beating Nottingham Forest—last season's FA Cup winners—8–0 at Turf Moor." This reads awkwardly, I would suggest rearranging it into someting like " ... before beating last season's ..."
 * I would recommend removing the refs beside the "Results" subheadings and incorporating them in their respective charts in the manner you have done with "Partial league table". I know they aren't technically subheadings but bolded text but they act like subheadings.

Assessment
 Comprehension: The article is very well written.

Verifiability: The article meets standards for verifiability.

Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive.

Neutrality: The article is neutral.

Stability: The article is stable. Illustration: The article is well illustrated.

