Talk:1959–60 Burnley F.C. season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello WA8MTWAYC, I'll be taking up the review for this article which I will present shortly. Hopefully, my feedback will be helpful and I will get to learn something interesting in the process. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  WA8MTWAYC, I am impressed. This is a very well research and well written article. It already meets the good article criteria so I'm going to promote. I have still left some comments below regarding a couple minor issues. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  Tayi Arajakate Thank you very much for your time and review, it's really appreciated! I've addressed your comments. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I couldn't access the two books but seeing as there are no issues with original research with respect to the rest of the references, I am going to assume they have been accurately represented in the article.
• Not sure if "protagonists" is an appropiate term to use. I would suggest using "contenders" instead.
• "... before beating Nottingham Forest—last season's FA Cup winners—8–0 at Turf Moor." This reads awkwardly, I would suggest rearranging it into someting like " ... before beating last season's ..."
• I would recommend removing the refs beside the "Results" subheadings and incorporating them in their respective charts in the manner you have done with "Partial league table". I know they aren't technically subheadings but bolded text but they act like subheadings.

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The article is very well written.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is good.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article is complaint with the manual of style.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article meets standards for verifiability.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article is cited with in-line citations.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources used are reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research was found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violations found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article has a comprehensive coverage.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article does not deviate from its subject.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
Pass

Notes	Result
Complaint with the policy on neutral point of view.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No content dispute, edit warring or major changes.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is well illustrated.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images are tagged with their appropriate copyright statuses.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Caption and use are good.	Pass