Jump to content

Talk:2016 Football League Two play-off final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2016 Football League Two play-off final 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2021Good article nomineeListed
September 14, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
January 24, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 6, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that AFC Wimbledon were promoted for a sixth time since their formation in 2002 when they won the 2016 Football League Two play-off Final?
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk02:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by The Rambling Man (talk). Self-nominated at 15:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article went from 797 characters to 8,144 by my count and it appears to be well-formatted and well-written, and the QPQ review has been completed. The blurbs are interesting enough, but I don't love the grammar of ALT1; did you mean to write that blurb as "for a sixth time in fourteen years"? Unfortunately, I can't give a check mark yet because the first paragraph of the background section is completely unreferenced. The supplemental guidelines call for at least one cite per paragraph, which should just about be sufficient for the one in question if the right source can be found. Consider it a pre-GAN cleanup, since a future GA reviewer is likely going to bring that up. Anyway, the hook fact is supported by the source, and the others I checked (the other usage of ref 12 and refs 5 and 9) adequately backed the content with no close paraphrasing, so that paragraph is my only issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 Football League Two play-off Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 08:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going to review this for the GAN March 2021 Backlog Drive. MWright96 (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead

[edit]

Route to the final

[edit]

Background

[edit]

Summary

[edit]

Post-match

[edit]

Shall place the review on hold to allow the nominator to address or query the points raised above MWright96 (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MWright96 thanks very much for the review, I believe I've addressed most of your concerns, and responded to everything above. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!)
@The Rambling Man: Now promoting to GA class MWright96 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]