Talk:Seaburn Casuals/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bait30 (talk · contribs) 02:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll start on this review soon.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• "English football club, Sunderland A.F.C.": that comma is unnecessary. (1a)
• "90s and the early 00s": would be more clear if you used "1990s and the early 2000s" per MOS:DECADE. (1a)
• Citations in lead: remove per MOS:CITELEAD. (1b)

Origins

• This entire section is not backed up by a reliable source. The "Hobbits and Hooligans" chapter that you cited does not mention anything about Seaburn Casuals or Sunderland or Newcastle. The word "football" is only mentioned once. The chapter isn't even about football. It's a political science paper that just uses the word "hooligan" as an analogy to describe a specific type of citizen within a democracy. (2)

History and Rivalries

• section heading: should be "History and rivalries" per MOS:HEADCAPS. Not really within scope of GA but should be done nonetheless.
• First two paragraphs: again not verifiable. "Hobbits and Hooligans". (2)
• "Sunderland AFC used to be noted for football hooliganism...": This article is about the Seaburn Casuals, not Sunderland AFC hooliganism as a whole. The article that was linked doesn't even mention Seaburn Casuals. (3b)
• "Calls that led to bloodbath" source: WP:DEADREF. new link here. (2)
• "At the end of the 2002–03 season...": Again, out of scope. (3b)

References

Reference numbers come from this version

• 2: per above
• 5: it's a dead link. I'm not sure what "Turks.US Daily News" is. I found it on the ChronicleLive website here.
• 3,4,5: Not sure why the dates retrieved are from 2008 when this article was created in 2020.
• 9: duplicate of 8
• 10: duplicate of 6
• 11: duplicate of 7

GA Template

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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):

   no images, so it doesn't matter

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The stuff tagged with the blue questions marks aren't really a big deal. Normally I would have just placed it on hold and given the standard week to make adjustments. But the issues with the references are just so big that I have to quickfail. This article as already pretty short as it is, and almost half of it is WP:OR since it is not in the source that you cited.