Talk:D.C. United/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a very well written article and I can see much effort has been put into it to make sure it is meeting all GA criteria before nominating it. There are a couple of small problems to be fixed, but after they have I think it would be safe to pass this as a GA article.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk 03:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Citation needed for
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * See below
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * See below
 * See below

Current Problems

 * In July 2006, D.C. United proposed building a new stadium along the Anacostia River as part of a redevelopment plan for Anacostia Park. However disputes with the Council of the District of Columbia over the proposal forced the team to consider other sites. - Please cite this to a reliable source.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk
 * The Screaming Eagles feature many singers, and also try to increase community support around D.C. United. - Any notable singers? Or just people that sing as a recreation? Please find a reference to these facts.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk

Summary
Lead History Colors and badge Stadium Supporters and rivalry Ownership and marketing Players Head coaches Statistics and records Year by year Achievements References
 * Is great, summarises and defines the club without going into the detail needed in a new section. I'd say perfect length as well.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk
 * Originally had a slight concern that ownership should be mentioned in the early history, but seems to be sufficiently covered later.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk
 * Fine.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk
 * See current problems.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk
 * See current problems.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk</i>
 * Fine.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  <i style="color:black;">Talk</i>
 * Fine.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  <i style="color:black;">Talk</i>
 * First paragraph could use some inline citations.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  <i style="color:black;">Talk</i>
 * Fine.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  <i style="color:black;">Talk</i>
 * Fine.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  <i style="color:black;">Talk</i>
 * Fine.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  <i style="color:black;">Talk</i>
 * Pretty good, if I was to be real nit picky I'd say reference 21 needs a retrieval date if someone can find it in the history. To be even more fine tooth, I'd say keep consistency with the dates for retrieval by having them either all numerical or alphabetical, not both. I think this would be something you'd look for in a FA nominee article though and the current references are all of Harvard format.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  <i style="color:black;">Talk</i>