Talk:Ray Kennedy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 *  They were though knocked out of the European Cup at the quarter-final stage by eventual winners Ajax - odd place to stick a "though:....


 * Done.--EchetusXe 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 *  Kennedy was a substitute as he lost his first team place late in the season due to fatigue - I think this needs more explanation. Do you mean fatigue over the season or he'd lose stamina during a game?


 * Fatigue caused him to lose stamina during a game, though I guess this could partly be a mental thing? Anyway I re-ordered the sentence.--EchetusXe 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Para 6 (1972–73 season) of Arsenal has alotta "Kennedy" s in it


 * Ah yeah, was careful to not confuse McLintock and Kennedy. Removed a couple of Kennedys.--EchetusXe 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 *  Arsenal were poor throughout the 1973–74 season, - meaning they ran out of money?


 * Point taken.--EchetusXe 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * ... the demise of the Double winning team. - hyphen?


 * Done.--EchetusXe 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 *  In July 1974, Kennedy was sold to Liverpool for a club record £200,000. - err, we need four refs for this why?


 * Removed 3.--EchetusXe 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 *  as the "Reds" went on to record a comfortable 3–0 win - why the quote marks around the nickname?


 * Done.--EchetusXe 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 *  The "Swans" had an unsuccessful attempt... - ditto


 * Done.--EchetusXe 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Earwig's copyvio tool clear.

Overall a good read - not much to complain about really.....on target for GA. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've acted on your points.--EchetusXe 14:52, 12 June 2016 (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: - great, well done.  Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)