Talk:1984 Intercontinental Cup/GA1

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian   (talk)  16:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article, and I find that it meets the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that should first be addressed. It has been a privilege to review this article and I look forward to your feedback. Thanks! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the cup match, establishes the cup match's necessary context, and explains why the cup match is otherwise notable.
 * The info box for the cup match is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
 * The image used in the info box is properly licensed as Non-free media information with use rationale.
 * Liverpool F.C. should be named as such in the first paragraph, and Club Atlético Independiente should also be rendered as such in their first mention in the lede. A.S. Roma should also be written as such in its first mention.
 * The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Match
 * The image of the National Stadium in Tokyo is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 and is therefore suitable for use here.
 * Ensure that Independiente is spelled consistently throughout, as it is misspelled in the first paragraph of the Summary subsection.
 * In the Details subsection, I suggest placing an inline citation toward the top so that all the information within can be directly linked to a verifiable reference.
 * The lists of players is beautifully formatted otherwise.
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Post-match
 * This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Thank you very much for the review and the kinds West Virginian, its much appreciated. I think I've tidied up the article per your suggestions. Thanks again for the review. NapHit (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NapHit, thank you for your timely incorporation of my suggestions. Upon my re-review, everything looks in order, so it is hereby a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status. Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)