Talk:2005 FA Community Shield/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, let's take a look....will jot notes below....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

...and held the Shield after beating Manchester United 3–1 a year ago --> "a year previously"? "the year before"?, "the previous year"?
In Team selection - best to mention if both sides were at full-strength (highly likely as at the beginning of the season)...or any form issues had led to unusual selections.
Maybe a dumb question...but why would Arsenal have worn an away strip given the colours with Chelsea are quite different.
Lead'd be better in two paras..

Overall, nice tight read and on target to pass methinks....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review -- have made adjustments. Chelsea happened to field a very strong looking team and this was a few days before signing Michael Essien. On the subject of why Arsenal wore their away strip I'm not entirely sure – it might have been a marking exercise by Nike to promote the new kit. When both teams played each other in the league at Stamford Bridge, Arsenal wore their one-off redcurrant kit. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Oops. sorry re delay - missed the reply. Anyway hang on.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Checking refs - ref #5 - i.e. this one, states league and cup champions became the norm from 1930, not 1920. Also it does not mention Premier League replacing Football League champions (which is what is written in article)...even though it is obvious. To keep it faithful to the source I might just say "champion league club vs FA cup winner (with footnote explaining change)
Rejigged the sentence and added footnote.
looking at refs - worth noting (from this one) that seven subs are allowed?
Included in the 'Match rules' section, for which I've now cited. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:16, 3 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: - couple of teeny things an' we're good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)