Talk:1924–25 Nelson F.C. season

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1924–25 Nelson F.C. season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Notes

• The lead is a sufficient summary. During my initial read through, I was wondering where information on the stadium or attendance was but then it was right there at the end. Nice. It might need to be a little longer if you plan on going to FA.
• I was am impressed with the scope and content of the the Background, Other first-team matches, and Player details sections. The layout is great.
• I was slightly disappointed with the details in theFootball League Third Division North section since there is such a focus on goals scored. It feels like some details of matches or progression of the team (not table wise) could be included. Something like any major changes to the line up. However, sourcing must be a pain and it is still written just fine.
• You seem to use "However" multiple times. None of these are a violation of WP:WORDS so that is OK.
• Consider wikilinking to relegation and 2-3-5. Some people not familiar with the game might need the assistance.
• Images check out. Nice work actually finding media to accompany the article. Commons wasn't very helpful in finding more images when I tried. MoS is met (especially with the subject not looking away from the text). Some editors do not believe left justification is needed so keep that in mind. Consider adding alt text.
• I appreciate your use of tables. I note that the key was useful in the player one. Consider making these tables sortable.
• I did enjoy the writing style. That coupled with the challenge of verifying (our standards make it clear that ease of verification is not a problem) of course raise the specter of plagiarism. It is probably fine but do a quick double check to make sure you did not follow the source too closely in your paraphrasing.
• disambig is all good.
• some warnings with external link status but appears to be all OK. Ease of verification is not a roadblock.
• You did not overuse the primary source (official team page) which is appreciated. It is cool that you rounded out the sources with The Times (do you have pg numbers though?). Historical Kits might be iffy as a source. I like the site and will not let that hold this GA back but keep it in mind since other editors might challenge it.
• I did not have any grammar or spelling jump out as a problem. This is not my strong suit as an editor so Peer Review might have some more suggestions.
• I ran the dash script. Note that you actually did use the correct dashes but I am under the impression that coding them in is frowned upon. Nice work making sure the dashes were the correct ones.

Overall

Pass. Nice work.

Cptnono (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and for your comments and I've made a few changes based on the above. I'm not planning on trying to get this Featured; the sources just aren't easy enough to access unfortunately. Thanks again, BigDom (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)