Talk:2003–04 S.L. Benfica season

2003–04 S.L. Benfica season has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 24, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Football: Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Portugal Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Relentlessly, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 23 October 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Attendances

This article got a feedback requesting attendances to be added. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean? Highest attendence and lowest attendance?--Threeohsix (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2003–04 S.L. Benfica season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 19:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I've done some minor fixes if that's OK. Other than that this article seems flawless; it's well written, comprehensive and the sources all check out fine. There is a harvref error which could be easily fixed though. Anyway, I'll list it now. Well done! JAGUAR 19:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]