Talk:2015–16 FA Cup qualifying rounds/GA1

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I will be starting the review of this article. First thing I notice is that this really looks like a list, or list of lists even. I am not sure if Feature List might not be more appropriate? With the small amount of actual prose in the article it may be a challenge.  MPJ  -US 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Images
None at all. Not a deal breaker but is there nothing at all? An appropriate team photo or anything?  MPJ  -US 15:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox

 * Peer review.
 * Lead is too short for an article this size,should be 3-4 sentences.


 * Copyright vio
 * No issues. ✅


 * Disambig
 * No issues. ✅


 * External links
 * "The FA cup archive" link is dead according to the too!.

General

 * Sources should not be in the lead, they should be cited in the body of the text where the fact is stated as well. No information should only be in the lead.
 * Like a lot of articles the lead here is treated as part of the article, the actual body of the article jumps straight past any sort of introduction, allowing the lead to serve that purpose. Think of if this way, the lead is a movie trailer and the rest of the article is the actual movie. the viewer should not HAVE to see the trailer to understand the movie, just like here the reader should not HAVE to read the lead to understand the actual article as the lead is a summary.

Overall
- WIth the tables being the majority of the article and being almost totally unsourced I am going to stop my review now and give it an immediate fail. It does not meet criteria 2 "Verifiable with no originl research". Simply put this article needs sources, sources' and sources. Third party if possible but at least sources that actually support the claims made, it has next to none.  MPJ  -US 21:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)