Jump to content

Talk:2008–09 York City F.C. season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2008–09 York City F.C. 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 2, 2009Good article nomineeListed
August 25, 2016Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:York City F.C. season 2008–09/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Overall, this article is good and very detailed. The following things need to be fixed though:

  • "Despite this, former Exeter City winger Lee Elam featured in a 1–1 draw against Leeds United." What does featured mean? The sentence is probably okay, just not that experienced with some football jargon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardman (talkcontribs) 04:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it appears that User:Wizardman has withdrawn from this review, I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, moving on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • I have made a number of copy-edits as has User:Wizardman. There are a number of rather long paragraphs which I would like to see broken up. PLease check the prose carefully as more copy editing made be needed. I may have missed some clumsy phrasing as a result of the rather dense text. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
    b (MoS):
    • The 'Lead should be a summary of the entire article - currently it doesn't mention the final position in the league. Perhaps a sentence or two summarizing the highest and lowest positions in the league would be appropriate, and split the lead into three paras. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: