Talk:2004–05 Arsenal F.C. season
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Casliber in topic GA Review
 | A fact from 2004–05 Arsenal F.C. season appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 November 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | 2004–05 Arsenal 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. | ||||||||||||
 | 2004–05 Arsenal F.C. season is the main article in the 2004–05 Arsenal F.C. season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | 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:2004–05 Arsenal F.C. season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Right, I will take a look at this, make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning!) and jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd tack the lone sentence at the bottom of the lead onto the end of the first para. Isolated sentences look choppy.
- ..
.reinforced Chelsea's position in first - sounds like a gear...I'd go with "reinforced Chelsea's position at the top of the table"
Backgroundsection has no inline cites
I've put some [citation needed] tags further down too.
Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for taking a look at this. Have made corrections. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, Earwig's copyvio checker passed ok.
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: