Talk:Crewe Alexandra F.C./GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A scarlet kit was adopted for a short spell in the mid-1920s. - confused - is this scarlet different to red or is this an all-scarlet kit (sorta like liverpool...?)
 * The source is unclear (I think scarlet is the same as red). Probably best to remove that confusion as part of restructuring the section. ✅
 * The first sentence of para 3 of the Club identity section looks like it should go at the front or para 1...? ✅


 * Also - any (sourceable) information on that other money-spinner...away kits? - added. ✅


 * Any information on cost of tickets for Attendance section (not exact just general info) - Used data from BBC survey in 2017 - seems a reliable source. ✅


 * Any information on the supporters -(or hooligans) - do they have a nickname?
 * One song features the line "We are the Railwaymen" and that is the name used for the Supporters Society. Compared to other clubs, Crewe does not have a hooligan reputation (the article mentions arrests following clashes with Port Vale and Macclesfield fans, but I have not been able to find any reliable sources about organised hooligan groups at Crewe). ✅


 * actually...do they have a mascot? - added mention of Gresty the Lion to identity section ✅


 * Also - for even weighting, any other players of note between formation and 1980s would be good to add. - Repeat mention of Keenor; the three post-war stars were Blunstone, Bowles and Grobelaar. ✅


 * Earwig's copyvio detector shows some similarities with a 2008 BBC page. Looking at the version from 28 December 2007...maybe the article borrowed a few bits and pieces that might be good to reword a little to distance. ✅

Overall an engaging read. Possibly a little weighted to recent - but then given the long periods of poor form probably justified. Over to you. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough read and detailed feedback. Paul W (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

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

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * 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: - nice read/well done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)