Talk:Cardiff City F.C./GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this, make straightforward changes as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * link South Wales Amateur League..?
 * Maybe add a little more about the controversial colour change from blue to red and blue again?


 * Thanks for taking the time to review the page, I've expanded the red shirt change section a bit further. The South Wales Amateur League page states that it was founded in 1946, which is much later than Cardiff played in a league under that name so I think they're different competitions that used the same name. Kosack (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird, ain't it - be good to get further information and clarify that at some point but not needed for GA here obviously Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Given that 1921-29 was their highest-functioning period, it might be good to add any other key players from that period into the article...?
 * Adding a note about the Soul Crew somewhere? maybe under rivalries?
 * Earwigs copyvio check gives a positive, which I presume is a site that has imported Wikipedia text to it, plus some other random stuff.

Otherwise looks good! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added a few extra names into the opening sections and a brief paragraph on the Soul Crew as well. The main copyvio clash is a definite copy of the Wikipedia page. The other two over 20% are mainly due to a clash of innocuous phrases, the first includes "the only goal of the game", "the end of the season" and "would go on to win the" which are fairly standard footballing terms. The other clashes as it lists the club's honours so the names of the trophies are highlighted due to their naming. I hope those are acceptable. Kosack (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required: - Academy subsection is unreferenced currently. Needs some inlines... could do with a couple more refs...but good enough for GA and am sure the facts aren't controversial...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - a nice read and solid article - I can't find much to complain about at all and is worth a tilt at FAC methinks, just one section needs some refs as pointed out above, and then we're "Good"....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added a couple of references for that section now. Kosack (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)