Talk:Carlton Town F.C./GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Review

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Contains a short description which complies with recommendations.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
9. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
10. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
11. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
12. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
13. No original research.
14. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
15. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
16. Neutral.
17. Stable.
18. Illustrated, if possible.
19. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

I'll be happy to do this review. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is well written on the whole and an interesting read. I'm a lifelong footy fan and I have heard of both Sneinton and Carlton but would never have known they were the same club. Anyway, this ticks all the boxes so I'm passing it as a GA.

There are just a few minor points if you intend to go for FAC. Some of the prose is a touch flowery – e.g., Sneinton's 1920–21 League campaign awarded them third place, perceived as encouraging granting widespread injuries and the emergence of young talent. You could say, more simply put, Despite team rebuilding and widespread injuries, Sneinton finished an encouraging third in their 1920–21 league campaign.

I think you should replace all instances of side with team because the word could confuse some readers. In a similar vein, please make sure you use team and not club when talking about match performances and the like. For example, County and Forest paid for the club's travel to Stockton, where it was defeated 7–2. It was the team that travelled and was defeated, not the club. Again, some readers might be confused. Vice-versa, although I haven't noticed one, don't use team when you mean club.

I've taken many of the sources on trust and I've assumed the images are okay because I can't see or envisage any issues but, if you go to FAC, you should double check them all first.

Anyway, it's a good article. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your review, No Great Shaker. I'll be sure to follow up on all of your good suggestions. Furthermore, here's hoping that Bury are back on their feet in time for next season and that my beloved Notts County have made a return to the EFL! Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Curlymanjaro. No problem doing the review. A very good piece of work. Thanks for your kind words about Bury – we hope to have something in place soon for bringing football back to Gigg Lane in August. I certainly would like to see County back in the EFL because you were always the oldest club taking part and it's where you should be. One day, fingers crossed, Bury and County will meet again in the league. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)