Talk:Stockport County F.C./GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Every para needs at least one inline citation at a minimum. The Rivalries section needs a bunch of references. Sentences at the ends of paras are lacking refs in some places.

• Combine paras of 1-2 sentences where possible.

• Refs of news reports often have authors, which should be added.

• Stockport were the first winners of the Third Division North, taking their first official Football League championship in the process - this sentence is redundant I think as it refers to the same set of circumstances in the following segment..?

• The current Main Stand, which still stands today, "which still stands today" is redundant as "current" signifies this.

• Stockport finished 22nd out of 22 in the Secondary Division and were relegated to Division 3 (North) after only earning 31 points. - this is the season following the snentece before, right? - also "secondary"?

• I wonder if the article suffers a little too much recentism. It still has some room for expansion so some more material on early days - e.g. key players in 1921-22, or 28-30 periods, date and locale for the 13–0 win over Halifax Town (did anyone score more than 3 goals in that match??)

• The 2015 Group was approved by the Football League at their May 2010 meeting, and it was announced on 17 June 2010 that the takeover of Stockport County was completed by the Group at a press conference held at 11:00 p.m. the same day. - this sentence is long and unwieldy. I'd split after "meeting", using a semicolon - and trim the latter to something like "On 17 June 2010 at an 11PM press conference, the takeover of Stockport County by the Group was announced" or somesuch

• Possibly worth mentioning in Rivalries that they are playing in the same league as FC United in 2015-16? my bad for missing that one.

• A link to Re-election (Football League) somewhere?

• From my limited knowledge, the rivalries can be tricky to source...which does beg the question if a particular one is notable if no sources can be found to support it. Good luck anyway....

NB: In case you think I'm being too finicky, I always try to give GA noms a big as shove as possible towards FAC, which I think this would have a fair chance of passing. Once the GAN is over I will ask some folks for a look-over the prose.

More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 27 August 2015 (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: - great, well done. the prose is engaging. the only ref not added is for the sentence of Stockport's current stablemates in the Rivalries section, which is pretty obvious. I can ask a couple of folks to look at the prose for possible readiness for FAC as I think it has a fair chance of passing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)