Talk:2004 FA Community Shield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 2004 FA Community Shield 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.
July 7, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Football (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the English football task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Arsenal task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Manchester United task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the season article task force.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2004 FA Community Shield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Aah well, in for a penny, in for a pound, will do take a look at this as well....queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd link stoppage time.
I'd write, "For Arsenal,..." at the beginning of the Team selection section - to delineate better.
ref 16 does not mention the £175,000 figure and reference to it bing the the largest ever given to a club by the FA in it. It is a good fact and would be good to keep in as long as we can find a source.
Many thanks for taking the time to review. Have made adjustments. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: - spotchecking was in order apart from one identified above.
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

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:


Pass or Fail: - Good conversion of guardian match-speak to encyclopedic English. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)