Talk:1987 Football League Second Division play-off final/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Taking a look now.... NB:Earwig's copyvio is clear
 * Okay I can see why Charlton played in blue in the third match but why did they in the first two matches....
 * They didn't. Good spot.  Plus the second leg has them the wrong way round too!  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Now fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No material on which side was favoured by writers before the series?
 * I have searched paper sources (on Charlton and Leeds), Guardian archives, Times archives, BNA, Gale and nothing. I guess it was new and a bit of a lottery.  A two-stage cup competition, where anything could happen... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't see anywhere where "Heathrow Agreement" is explained (as in why it has that name)
 * I suspect the meetings were probably held in facilities at Heathrow Airport. Explained a bit more about the overall aim of the agreement.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In the Background subsection of the Match section, the middle short para of two sentences looks odd - it could be split with each piece moved to the front of the corresponding bit of the club section like this...?
 * Cheers, reworked per your suggestions. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In the Summary subsection of the First leg - the first ref goes to here....?
 * Gah, fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise seeing very little to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed your concerns, but do let me know if I missed anything? Cheers for the review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: a nice read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)