Talk:2021 National League play-off final/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 14:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one. Will post review asap. Kosack (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Lede
• As per WP:OVERLINK, links to the same subject should only appear once in the lede and once in the main text. League Two is linked twice in the first paragraph.

• "the thirty-fifth minute", numbers over ten should generally be displayed in numeric form, therefore should be 35th. Also, 95th in the following sentence.

• 2021–22 EFL League Two and Ashton Gate linked again in the last paragraph.

• Generally, references should be avoided in the lede unless the information is not sourced elsewhere. Refs 2 and 3 can be dropped because the information is sourced further down. The information that ref 1 supports could probably be added to the main body as well I'd say.

Route to the final
• In the first two sentences of the second paragraph, you use both 2nd and 3rd and fifth-place. Try to stay consistent with relatable figures, so I'd suggest changing to second and third.

• "thirty five seconds" > 35

• "with another goal via Danny Wright", as Wright has already been mentioned, there's no need to use his first name now.

• "into extra time. In extra time", a little repetitive wording here. Can the second instance be moved.

• "On the other hand", very informal wording. I'd suggest dropping this and just starting with Hartlepool. If this is agreed, I'd add a comma after Weymouth.

• "top 3" > top three

• "before the goalkeeper", the reads a little clunkily, perhaps opposition?

• Two uses of Rhys Oates' first name in short succession after this can be dropped.

• "by defender Byron Webster", by doesn't seem to suit the sentence. Perhaps via or through?

• Rhys Oates' linked again in the final paragraph. Drop the first name too.

• "would end County's", odd mix of tense. Switch to ended.

Background
• "the preceding 2019–20", add season or campaign after this.

• "would be at 25%" > limited to 25% perhaps? Reads a little like there's something missing

• "1st place" > first place

• " run of thirteen" > 13

• "Torquay had previously won one National League play-off Final", final doesn't need capitalising here as you're not referring to the actual final just another National League final if that makes sense.

• "by 2–0", this doesn't read right to me. Essentially you're writing that they won by two nil which doesn't work. Needs rewriting.

• "Torquay mostly struggled in non-league" > had mostly struggled and non-League.

• "After an unbeaten run of 16 between" > 16 games

• I'd also change 4th to fourth at the end of this sentence to avoid switching between formats mid-sentence.

• "they have been relegated", wrong tense should be had

• "Hartlepool are looking", same again. Should be were.

• "play-off Final", final doesn't need capitalising again as it's not the actual name of the final you're referring to.

• Rhys Oates' and Asa Hall are repeat linked in the final paragraph.

First half
• Might be worth mentioning what time the match kicked off at the start here.

• "through Cameron", use full name on first mention.

• "This seemed to galvanise Hartlepool" this seems a little close to the BBC report used, could do with rewording.

• No need to link Rhys Oates again.

• "troubling Covolan", use full name on first mention.

• Some of the wording used here is a little informal, phases like "tricky to smother", "sparked Pools into life" and "almost notched". Could do with a minor rewrite to avoid using such terms.

• I'm assuming that the match reports used at the start are covering the whole section. Repeat the ref at the end of the paragraph to cover all the info.

Second half
• Drop first names for Cameron and James

• A few more tabloid sort of phrases to look at, "threw everything at their opponents", "lumped back forward" and "rose to nod".

Extra-time
• Section is unsourced.

• No mention of the shootout here? I would expect a mention, even if it's a brief reflection (first 4 penalties missed, winning and losing kicks etc)

Post-match
• Both managers are previously linked, so no need to repeat them here.

• "It was Hartlepool United's first", drop United

• "Hartlepool managed to maintain two good cup runs. Hartlepool" bit repetitive with the double use of Hartlepool

• Stockport County repeat linked.

Second run through
The copyvio detector is scoring quite highly on two sources. Although some large quotes attribute for some of it, there are a few passages that seem to be direct copies of the source, namely the BBC and Guardian. The information needs to be rewritten in your own words.

First half
• "Rhys Oates – with 17 goals in all competitions this season", drop first name and change this season to during the season to change tense.

• Unlink Armstrong, already linked previously.

Second half
• Unlink Holohan and drop the first name.

• Looking at it again, the second half seems a little light. We jump from early on to late on, is there nothing else of note?

A few more minor points and some copyvios to take care of. Kosack (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio
There is still a high rating on the copyvio detector, in fact it's actually gone up on the BBC ref since the last check. The two parts in particular are the middle and final sentence of the first half section. The paraphrasing is far too close to the original source and needs rewording. Kosack (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a courtesy ping as it's been a short while with no advancement and we're pretty close to wrapping up here. Kosack (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kosack: Hi I've just re-phrased the final sentence there. Which middle sentence was the issue please? Michaeldble (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * if you can tweak the "substitute Billy Waters missed a close-range effort in the 89th minute" sentence slightly, I think we're there. Kosack (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kosack I think I've done it now. Michaeldble (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I'm happy that this meets the GA criteria and am happy to promote. Nice work. Kosack (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kosack Thank you for your help! Michaeldble (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)