Jump to content

Talk:Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleManchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 19, 2010Articles for deletionNo consensus
December 29, 2010Articles for deletionNo consensus
March 29, 2020Good article nomineeListed
April 25, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Context

[edit]

Can I add a context section which says that ITFC won 3-2 in the reverse fixture and MUFC lost the title by three points that season?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might just add that to the lead for some balance... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

The proposed wording by User:Harrias is a little clunky, and the change by User:The Rambling Man is little better. I've proposed a far better wording, but apparently this isn't appropriate because of WP:SEAOFBLUE. That MOS guideline states "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link". Unfortunately, due to the wording proposed by the two aforementioned editors being unnecessarily clunky, it is preferable to ignore that rule and proceed with the wording I have suggested; however, if there are any alternatives that satisfy both parties, that would be acceptable. – PeeJay 17:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm notoriously bad at lead sections! I haven't had a looked at your proposed alternative, but I'm sure we can work out something that suits all of us. I've got to sort out dinner for the family and stuff at the moment, but I'll hopefully have a look later this evening. Harrias talk 17:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and thanks for being so personable about the whole thing. Unfortunately TRM wasn't so accommodating earlier. I've also found my own proposed wording that actually avoids the SEAOFBLUE, but take a look and see what you think. – PeeJay 17:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was probably tired of seeing obnoxious edit summaries. A little less of that and a little more collaboration like this might go a long way. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick look and made a small tweak; the phrasing before, starting "The association football match.." made it sound like it was the only match between the teams. How do you like the current version, PeeJay2K3? Harrias talk 18:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little more to it. The definite article seemed appropriate since the sentence refers to the match that the article is about, and I've added some content to make it clear what the result was earlier on, since that's what makes the match notable. – PeeJay 18:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me now, thanks. :) Harrias talk 20:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 18:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. MWright96 (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2020 (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]

Background

[edit]

Head-to-head record

[edit]

Team selection

[edit]

Summary

[edit]

Reaction

[edit]

References

[edit]

Those were all of the issues that I discovered in the article. On hold. MWright96 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MWright96 (and Harrias) I've addressed or responded to all the issues above, thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: and Harrias Am now promoting to GA class. MWright96 (talk)