Talk:2012–13 York City F.C. season/GA1

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

Reviewer: ScoobyHugh (talk · contribs) 11:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I will review the article. However, this is my first GA review so bear with me if I'm a little slow! ScoobyHugh (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Just a couple of minor spelling/grammatical errors, namely: In the lead, "News Year's Day"; under September, "taking the led"; under January, "Everson made his debut as a 71st minute debut"; under 'February', "York drew 0–0 draw at Oxford". Could you also clarify this, under 'November': "Carlisle went on loan to divisional rivals Northampton until January 2013, when he would sign for them permanently". Are you saying it was known in advance he would sign for them permanently in January, or that he would later go on to sign for them permanently? I think it's the former, probably to do with not being able to sign players outside of the transfer window, but I think it could do with being a little more clear. Another minor point: under 'Background', you have: "The Trophy victory...". I think it could be made absolutely clear that you're talking about the FA Trophy by saying it explicitly ("The FA Trophy victory..."), as there could be slight confusion given that you've just talked about winning two trophies.
 * For 1b, there is also room for a few improvements. There are a couple of instances of consecutive words being wikilinked, which can cause confusion (see LAYOUT), namely 'Football league trophy first round' under September, 'FA Cup first round' under November, and 'Icelandic Úrvalsdeild' & 'League of Ireland Premier Division' under January. Some of them are unavoidable, i.e. striker Oli Johnson, if you want to wikilink to playing positions, but in that case shouldn't 'defender' be wikilinked as well in the background section? I would also use "The previous season's..." instead of "Last season's Conference champions" under October just to be completely clear (seeWTW). Similarly, "hit back" under September and "going down" under February don't sound completely encyclopedic to me (see WTW).
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * For 2a, as there's only 1 footnote, I'm not sure if it warrants its own section. Could you maybe take a look at FNNR and think of grouping the footnotes and references together?
 * For 2b, could you use this as a reference for the game against Rochdale in December as it backs up the claim about it being the first win in 8 games? Could you also use something like this  to support the claim that the 4-0 defeat to Wycombe was the largest of the season? Is there a source saying Michael Ingham was the only ever-present player? Were the players signed three days before the end of the transfer window in August? That may not be right depending on whether they were signed on 29th or 30th August? I'm also a little dubious about the reliability of the reference for Cresswell being the club's record sale. I've had a quick look at other sources, which agree that the fee was £950,000, but none of them use the word 'record' - can this be confirmed?  might be a useful reference for the discipline column of squad statistics, but this could possibly change come the start of the new season.
 * For 2c, I'd be a little careful of saying something along the lines of "...went out on loan, with his opportunities in the team being limited" if the source doesn't explicitly say that's why he went out on loan.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I see no mention of any pre-season friendlies, which I thought might be worthy of including? I understand that friendlies against lower league opposition may not be notable/easy to find references for, but did York not play any high-profile friendlies last season?
 * 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) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall, very good! The suggestions I've made are all fairly minor and should be easy to fix, in my opinion. I've put the article on hold for now in anticipation of the changes being made, but I will also ask a more experienced user to take a quick look at the article too for a second opinion. ScoobyHugh (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Requested second opinion here: As a quick caveat, I'm a Yank, so I'm admittedly the last person you want reviewing a football article. Trusting you two to catch any technical errors or omissions, though, everything looks solid here to me. The image tags are good (thanks for taking and donating those, Matty), at least the bulk of the sources appear reliable, the coverage appears thorough without being overdetailed, and I see no obvious neutrality problems. The lead appears to meet WP:LEAD and I didn't see any WP:WTW problems on a superficial pass, though the phrases ScoobyHugh points out are a little informal and could be rewritten. As ScoobyHugh pointed out above, there are some minor copyediting issues (and Scooby, if it's easier, don't hesitate to do stuff like that yourself; nothing wrong with the reviewer making some tweaks. Either way's fine, though). Spotchecks of several sources show no evidence of copyright issues.
 * In short I think this one's ripe for promotion once that minor prose clean-up is done and the other issues Scooby raised are addressed. I think his review's a good one so far. Thanks to you both for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All done, I think. Regarding 2c, I've reworded it to say "Bullock was loaned out to Gateshead of the Conference for a month, with his appearances in the team being limited", which more closely matches the ref's text of "has been limited to seven appearances for the Minstermen this season".  On 3a, I've opted to not include details of any pre-season friendlies; I've looked through existing GAs for club season articles, and they tend not to cover them in the prose. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I've made a few other minor edits myself such as removing another pair of consecutive wikilinks and adding a wikilink to Liam Henderson, who first appeared simply as "Henderson". No problem about the friendlies, I wouldn't personally consider them to be one of the 'main aspects' of a club's season so that won't affect the outcome of the review, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. I shall accept the reference for Cresswell being the record sale in good faith, particulary as it seems to be essentially the same reference given in the FA-class York City F.C. article. I'm happy for the article to be promoted, congrats! ScoobyHugh (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the review. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)