Talk:1891–92 Sheffield United F.C. season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 1891–92 Sheffield United 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.
February 26, 2013 Good article nominee Listed

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1891–92 Sheffield United F.C. season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The C of E (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    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:

I'll review this, Overall I think it is well written. Since most of the sources are offline, I am going to AGF on them. I do think that there are a few prose issues that should be sorted out before I can pass this:

  • The first line of the second lead paragraph should have a comma after Woolstinholm
    • Done.
  • No need to link Woolstinholm when he's already been linked earlier in the main body of text
    • Not sure where you mean?
  • I'm not sure that calling the accusations acrimonious fulfills WP:LABEL
    • It's how it's described in the source but removed.
  • It seems a bit of a violation of WP:PEA to describe teams as strong
    • Altered
  • Per WP:OPED, losses should not be described as disappointing.
    • Altered
  • The last sentence of the Northern League section, "They" is used a bit much, might be better to say that United wanted to review the ballot papers to clarify.
    • Revised.
  • The Club can't get angry as a non-living thing, don't you mean that it angered the club directors?
    • Revised.
    • I would also remove the word further after that as the article at the moment only says that the decision annoyed them.
      • Not sure I agree - the initial decision to place United in Div 2 and Wednesday in Div 1 angered the directors, the FA's refusal to release the papers also angered them and made the situation worse, so a description of it 'angering them further' seems aposite?
  • Again per OPED, I'd change "easily dispatched"
    • Altered.
  • Kilnhurst should be linked when first mentioned.
    • Kilnhurst F.C. don't have a WP article (and don't meet football notability so will never have) so there's nothing to link to. I omitted a wiki link to avoid a perpetual redlink
  • In the results, It should really have the city next to the ground name, otherwise who would know where South Bank were from for example?
    • Done

Otherwise, picture licenses are fine (As I'd expect them to be given the time period) Just need to iron out these issues and I'll clear it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've updated most of the above but have a couple of further queries / points. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Updated the last outstanding point. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
All OK. We have a new Good Article. Congratulations. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1891–92 Sheffield United F.C. season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)