Talk:1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season/GA1

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Lee Vilenski in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 13:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

edit
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -
edit

Prose

edit

Lede

edit

General

edit

Everything else seems pretty good to me. Well done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lee Vilenski thanks so much for plucking this one off the list. I appreciate it. I think I've answered your notes or fixed them where applicable. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Least I can do, seeings as you've done around 20 of mine! Pretty well written, it was just the lede that needed work. I'm quite happy with this one. Passing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Comments

edit
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.