Talk:1993 FA Charity Shield/GA1

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 20:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Lemonade51 (talk)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  20:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written
 * a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 5) ** Major Point 1: Background "It was held at Wembley Stadium on … common practise in time for the 1993–94 season." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 6) ** Major Point 2: Pre-match "" (not in the lead)
 * 7) ** Major Point 3: Match "Both goals of the match … saved by his opposite number Peter Schmeichel." (not a concise summary of the Match section)
 * 8) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 9) ** Major Point 1: Background "It was held at Wembley Stadium on … common practise in time for the 1993–94 season." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 10) ** Major Point 2: Pre-match "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
 * 11) ** Major Point 3: Match "Both goals of the match … saved by his opposite number Peter Schmeichel." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
 * 12) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 13) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 14) *** The 1993 FA Charity Shield was the 71st FA Charity Shield, an annual football match played between the winners of the previous season's Premier League and FA Cup competitions.
 * 15) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 16) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 17) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 18) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 19) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 20) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 21) ** Check for Biographies: NA
 * 22) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 23) Check for Biographies of living persons:  NA
 * 24) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 25) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 26) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 27) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 28) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 29) * The lead should be expanded.
 * 30) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 6) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 8) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): ✅
 * 9) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None
 * 11) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): None
 * 12) * Check for Links to sister projects: None
 * 13) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 14) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 15) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 16) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 17) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

✅


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with other FAs)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅

Cross-checked with other FAs & FLs: 1956 FA Cup Final, 1923 FA Cup Final, Arsenal F.C. league record by opponent & Premier League Manager of the Season


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (not contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: No
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 7) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 8) * What else has the author published?:
 * 9) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 10) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 3) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅

Cross-checked with other FAs & FLs: 1956 FA Cup Final, 1923 FA Cup Final, Arsenal F.C. league record by opponent & Premier League Manager of the Season


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) Check for copyright status:  ✅
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  None
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  NA

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are :
 * The lead does not provide an accessible overview and does not give relative emphasis.
 * Thanks for your thorough and detailed review. Have expanded the lead to include some pre and post-match detail, as well as more about the match itself. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  08:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I’m glad to see your work here. All the best, -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  09:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  08:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)