Talk:2003 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship final/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 18:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert in Gaelic football, but per WP:DASH I would expect goals and wides to be separated by an en-dash, not a hyphen.
 * First sentence of lead is long and involved, and includes several concepts that a non-expert would struggle with, e.g. "county sides", "provincial level". Could use some work, perhaps move some of the more complex explanations to the main part of the article.
 * "a boundary - this was " en-dash, not hyphen. There are many examples of this.
 * "0-12 - 0-09 " agh, perhaps "0–12 v 0–9" (is there any need for the leading zero in the second scoreline? And maybe link the score to the correct section of Gaelic football as it's certainly not clear to a non-expert.
 * " by 2 counties from" 2->two per MOSNUM.
 * " since Cork in 1989/1990 " but previously " in 1986 and 1995 but" - is the winning year a range or just a single year?
 * "surprisingly lost to" bit POV here.
 * You have many refs, but you don't reference "the ties were played whilst Tyrone were competing in the latter stages of the Ulster Championship." for some reason.
 * 0-5 vs 0-06, again, I'm no expert but I'd expect to see consistency here.  And an en-dash!
 * "namely Kerry" no need for namely.
 * Link Roads Service.
 * Isn't it Hogan Stand rather than Hogan stand?
 * " did come on as" -> "came on as"
 * "were spurned" bit POV, maybe just "were missed"
 * "0-09 – 0–12" in the graphic... so we really need consistency across the whole article regarding these awkward scorelines.
 * "References: [50][45]" remove space before refs and list them in numerical order.
 * "from the predominantly nationalist" is this referenced?
 * Newspapers are normally ''italicised".
 * "another example of nationalists trampling on unionists" if this is a quote, put it in quotes, otherwise it's not neutral in tone and needs work.
 * There's a [citation needed] tag which really needs to be resolved.

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 22, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: ❌
 * 2. Factually accurate?: ✅
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: ✅
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: ❌
 * 5. Article stability?: ✅
 * 6. Images?: ✅

Some work to do before this should be GA. Good luck with updating the article and addressing my comments.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)