Talk:1967–68 Manchester City F.C. season/GA1

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

Reviewer: Resolute 02:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 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:


 * Background and pre-season
 * "though Tony Coleman, a winger with a wild off-field reputation..." - I was curious about his reputation, but it is not elaborated here, and is not explained in his article. Did Coleman's reputation cause any controversy with the signing?
 * Mercer had reservations but was talked around by Allison. The most notorious story involving Coleman was that he threw a bed out out of a third floor window while attending the FA's School of Excellence in Lilleshall, but that was long before he joined the club and it would be contrived to crowbar it into the article. He also hit a referee once, but I don't have any further information about that. I've added a bit about Mercer's reservations, with a quote from Allison to give some colour. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed it would be contrived to try and explain it here. Obviously not imporatnt to this GAN, but it might not hurt to consider explaining some of his rep in his own article for curious people who click through. Resolute 16:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Football League First Division
 * "City's search for a new goalkeeper ended..." - this statement is rather unexpected. You explain that the search for a goalkeeper is over before you state that one has begun.  What prompted City to acquire Mulhearn?
 * I think I originally intended to expand on this further, but in doing so encountered contradictory information in the references, and ended up leaving that mess of a sentence there. I've now reworded it. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "...but two Bobby Charlton goals meant a win for United" As this is the first mention of Manchester(?) United in the body, it should be linked.


 * Ballet on Ice
 * "City produced one of their best footballing performances in their history." - According to who? Please clarify that this is a fan opinion.
 * "In late April, after City won 1–0 against Sheffield Wednesday and title rivals United lost to..." - I know enough of English football to realize you are referring to Manchester United, but don't assume every reader will, especially when a Sheffield United is also previously mentioned. It would be best to refer to Manchester United by its full title here.


 * Title decider at Newcastle
 * You set up both City and United's games, but don't mention the result for Manchester United. Presumably if Manchester United had won, the title would have been decided on a tiebreaker, so I assume that they lost, but it is not explained.


 * Matches
 * The league table, and the results summary confuse me, as both tables show City playing 42 matches, but the first table shows their overall record as 26-6-10, but the second says 22-15-5. What is causing this discrepancy?


 * Squad statistics
 * Sorting for the goals column under league play seems broken. It sorting alphabetically (14 before 2) rather than numerically.  Oddly, the total goals column is working.
 * No idea what causes this, but the template appears to fix it. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I find this to be a well written article, and fairly easy to understand coming from a background unfamiliar with English terminology and slang. It is factually accurate, neutral and appears complete. Just a few issues listed above require addressing, after which I will pass the article. Cheers! Resolute 02:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Never involved myself in a GA review before so hopefully I'm labelling my comment correctly here. I quickly added a few things to fix some of your issues (specifically the error in the wins/draws/losses summaries, which actually were the result of an accidental carry-over from the correct figures for the season before), plus various references to Manchester United - any City fan, and indeed 99% of football fans, will only ever refer to them as "United" - and the end-of-season paragraphs which left the status of the other title contenders unclear. I'll do a bit more on the stuff that needs fixing tomorrow; that is if OEP doesn't do it first. Falastur2  Talk 04:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken a second look, and am satisfied this is now a GA. 'Grats to you both! Resolute 16:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)