Talk:2012 FA Cup final/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:2012 FA Cup Final/GA1)
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- ok i will take a look at this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- The date of the final clashed with Premier League fixtures,[5] it was scheduled to provide a clear four-week period between the end of the English season and the start of UEFA Euro 2012. - the construction is wrong - either convert the comma to a semicolon or period, or take out "it was" and flip the construction to something like "Scheduled to provide a clear four-week period between the end of the English season and the start of UEFA Euro 2012, the date of the final clashed with Premier League fixtures."
- Done NapHit (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- The date of the final clashed with Premier League fixtures,[5] it was scheduled to provide a clear four-week period between the end of the English season and the start of UEFA Euro 2012. - the construction is wrong - either convert the comma to a semicolon or period, or take out "it was" and flip the construction to something like "Scheduled to provide a clear four-week period between the end of the English season and the start of UEFA Euro 2012, the date of the final clashed with Premier League fixtures."
- Ramires put Chelsea in front in the 11th minute after he disposed Liverpool midfielder Jay Spearing and beat Pepe Reina in the Liverpool goal - I'd add "area" after this, which sounds more natural to me.
- done NapHit (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ramires put Chelsea in front in the 11th minute after he disposed Liverpool midfielder Jay Spearing and beat Pepe Reina in the Liverpool goal - I'd add "area" after this, which sounds more natural to me.
- The first half was dogged, with both sides enjoying long spells of possession, - not sure what you mean by "dogged" here. "Tough"/"even" ?
- changed NapHit (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- The first half was dogged, with both sides enjoying long spells of possession, - not sure what you mean by "dogged" here. "Tough"/"even" ?
- The second half began with immediate controversy, - sounds odd/stilted - rephrase.
- reworded NapHit (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- The second half began with immediate controversy, - sounds odd/stilted - rephrase.
- This booked Chelsea's place in their first FA Cup Final since 2010, in which they beat Portsmouth. - could be trimmed to "This booked Chelsea's place in their first FA Cup Final since their 2010 triumph over Portsmouth."
- done NapHit (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- This booked Chelsea's place in their first FA Cup Final since 2010, in which they beat Portsmouth. - could be trimmed to "This booked Chelsea's place in their first FA Cup Final since their 2010 triumph over Portsmouth."
- in what was described as "arguably the biggest match of the season" for the two clubs at the time - reword so we don't need direct quotes.
- removed this, don't think it's necessary. NapHit (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- in what was described as "arguably the biggest match of the season" for the two clubs at the time - reword so we don't need direct quotes.
- Chelsea's victory set up a Community Shield match against Manchester City, the winners of the 2011–12 Premier League. The two sides met in the Premier League three days after the final, a match that Liverpool won 4–1 - Huh? You're talking about Chelsea and Man City...and then mention Liverpool. Confusing....
- Moved to the end of the para. NapHit (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Chelsea's victory set up a Community Shield match against Manchester City, the winners of the 2011–12 Premier League. The two sides met in the Premier League three days after the final, a match that Liverpool won 4–1 - Huh? You're talking about Chelsea and Man City...and then mention Liverpool. Confusing....
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- few twaeks needed as above - 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:
minor prose tweaks andwe're there...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)- Thanks for the review @Casliber:, I've addressed your concerns. NapHit (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yikes - just noticed ref 40 is a deadlink....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oops, must of forgot to remove that before I nominated. Sorted now, thanks again @Casliber:, appreciate the review. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)