Talk:1930–31 Cardiff City F.C. season
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Kosack in topic GA Review
 | 1930–31 Cardiff City F.C. season has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 16, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:1930–31 Cardiff City F.C. season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- make the lead into two paras
...club's board to sanction the sale of several players...- why not just "allow"?
Cardiff conceded 13 goals and scored only four in reply- both words or both numerals...tricky spread I know....sigh
-
securing a –1 draw with Everton- presume this is a 1-1 draw....?
Cardiff gained only on further point in October- "one"?
The August–December is a bit heavy with scores and goals (naturally) - good to have the bit on appendiicitis in it. Any other events would be good if there are any to add (err.....anything about the weather?)
If you can find a source, maybe in the Aftermath section how long they remained in div 3 south before returning?
- Earwigs copyvio is clear
Otherwise a pretty miserable read (nice, but sad subject matter :)) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- Manual of Style compliance:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
- Focused:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
- Fair representation without bias:
5. Reasonably stable?
- No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
- Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
- Pass or Fail: -
a couple of minor issues....nearlythere @Kosack:....- @Casliber: Thanks very much for the review, I've amended all of the points above and expanded slightly where possible. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)