Talk:West Ham United F.C./GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(not missing out on this one!) - righto then, I'll go through and copyedit (please revert if I accidentally guff the meaning)and jot queries below....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ensure consistency - make sure all you either have all "Division 1", 2, etc. or "Division One, Two etc. I've seen both in the article.


 * Crest and colours and Supporters, hooliganism and rivalries sections could do with some more referencing. Any given par should have a minimum of one ref...


 * Any extra info on the mile end mob can be added?


 * Maybe sprinkle some bits on key players to the team over various periods (e.g. in Glory Years)

Overall, nicely written and well on track to getting GA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up this article.I am deeply sorry I am very late to respond.


 * They are all the same.Division 1 is same meaning as Division One.However in some cases like Southern Division 1 it is written as 1 only not one like Football League Two instead of Football League 2.


 * In glory years enough info has been provided like that of Bobby Moore and all..
 * It mentions what they were doing in the national team I guess, but it might be good noting how/what they did for the team itself.
 * Done


 * Provided reference in Crest


 * Can you please tell me what do you mean by "mile end mob"?
 * See the first sentence under Hooliganism - it doesn't specify whether thet are West Ham supporters or not....
 * They are West ham supporters http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209028/Man-stabbed-West-Ham-Millwall-fans-brawl-outside-stadium.html

RRD13 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Also - several other sections have no inline references at all (glory years and ups and downs) - I find double checking with reliable sources always good as you often find out other interesting info or some factual errors etc, NB: From the Castle Swifts F.C. and Old Lukes F.C. - I reckon the relationship to Castle Swifts F.C. and Old Lukes F.C. warrant a single line at the beginning of the history section. Also the material on Ted Fenton as you can see the groundwork laid for the glory years.
 * Have added some good refs to the Glory Years section.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And made a start on the Ups and Downs.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think all this - to be cited and comprehensive - really needs a book or two on West Ham - do you have any? If not, maybe we should just archive this nomination and work on the suggestions without a deadline and renominate. I'd be happy to take another look as it is an interesting topic. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

NB: will ask some of the other editors who might have the book handy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Worked on all the citations.Job done RRD13 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

For references etc I recommend you take a look at the History of West Ham United F.C. page. I listed as many citations and books in there as I could readily get my hands on when writing the article. Koncorde (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, which is why (as a reviewer) I posted on the talk page there. I'd like to see folks who really know the club get the sourcing in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Which are the things that are left to be mended?RRD13 (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * All looking good - just a few tags and it should be over the line. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

✅ Worked on those.RRD13 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, impressive! Okay - will pull out the criteria nowish....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 8 October 2013 (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 piece o'work this (from a disgruntled Spurs supporter : . Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)