Talk:Tranmere Rovers F.C./GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll begin a review now and make straightforward copyedits as I go. (Hey I thought this looked familiar...here we go again) Please revert if I inadvertently guff the meaning. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I must say, scanning over it - that if you feel you've added everything you want to, then merging with History of Tranmere Rovers F.C. looks to me like a good idea. If you look at FA and scan some of the football FAs such as Sunderland A.F.C., York City F.C., and Luton Town F.C. for starters, you can see they are big or bigger than a combination of the two articles on Tranmere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The two articles were split because the history bit was so long (not to mention unreferenced, and a copyright infringement). It's somewhat slimmer now, and could go back. Here's a test merge. However, I note that this comes to 65k in size, and WP:SIZERULE suggests that such an article should be divided. U+003F? 10:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahaa, no they are two different measurements - the readable prose size is only 17 kB (2908 words) - you can put the tool in your monobook here at User:Dr pda/prosesize.js - once loaded you get a "page size" in your toolbox in hte left hand column. Very useful. So this could be double the size and not need splitting. I think a single merged article is a major improvement and something that could with some polish and review end up at FAC. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the pointer. A couple of questions: can I just perform a merge now, or does it have to be put up for discussion? And: can the GA review carry on, or would it have to be restarted after such a big change to the article? U+003F? 13:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Scratch the questions, I've fired ahead and merged the two articles. U+003F? 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Right then, on to business....some comprehensiveness queries first.


 * You have both "Superwhites" and "Super whites" in the article, choose one (like occurs in sources) and align all the spelling.
 * U+003F? 11:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anything about the club badge/emblem? And have their been more than one?
 * <tt style="color:gray">U+003F</tt><tt style="color:red">?</tt> 12:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anything about rivalries?
 * <tt style="color:gray">U+003F</tt><tt style="color:red">?</tt> 12:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anything about fans? fanzines? publications both official and unofficial?
 * <tt style="color:gray">U+003F</tt><tt style="color:red">?</tt> 12:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Now prose/referencing queries.....

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

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required: - just one tag to fix.
 * 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: - just one tag to fix but looking good . Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Tag fixed in my absence! <tt style="color:gray">U+003F</tt><tt style="color:red">?</tt> 23:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, so it was, ok done then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)