Talk:Sutton United F.C./GA1

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

Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Not long enough per WP:LEAD. Needs to be two or three paragraphs long.


 * History
 * Don't use ampersands (&) in flowing prose.
 * Use endashes for all scores.
 * Suffers from recentism. See WP:RECENTISM.
 * "Due to" is being misused and overused. "Because of" is better because it's causal rather than a time phrase. Find better ways of re-phrasing the prose to avoid overusing it anyway.


 * Shirt sponsors
 * Rename this section to colours, and expand on the colours worn by the club during their history. Where they came from, etc?


 * SUFC Gambia
 * I don't see the point of this section. It seems like trivia. See WP:TRIVIA.


 * Notable former managers
 * Turn into prose rather than a straight out list.


 * Ground
 * There's no section – as other football teams have – for the club's home ground.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Most of the prose is good, though there are some short sentences, particularly consecutives ones which could be combined to make the prose better flowing or more engaging. Also read over the prose before resubmitting a GA nomination for silly errors such as one sentence finishing with a comma and full stop. The lead needs serious expansion to summarise the full article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The referencing needs a lot of work. I've added some tags on sentences and claims which need to be backed up with reliable references. Also please don't use messages from Twitter as sources. Some of the sources need checking for reliability, e.g. Two hundred percent, the Btinternet site currently reference 5 and From The Lane. All references need publisher details and accessdates. Publisher details should not be for example simply "official website" use "Sutton United F.C." instead
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There's no section on the club ground. The history section has more details on more recent events and does not summarise the full history of the club.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Quite clearly written by a fan and I think suffers from this; it seems to accentuate the positives too much
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this. It needs an awful lot of work. The lead needs expanding to two or three paragraphs; the history section needs making more impartial and needs work on the club's early history; more details on the ground, shirt colours and managers are needed; the referencing issues need sorting and improving. Overall I would suggest getting helping at WP:FOOTY, looking at other football club articles which are either featured or good articles, and I would definitely suggest getting a peer review before resubmitting a nomination. Brad78 (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, it's really helpful. — Half  Price  17:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)