Talk:West Midlands (Regional) League/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Seeing other England-related articles, the date settings need to be fixed, (Ex: "May 31, 1889" ---> "31 May 1889"). I notice that the article has sentences that read "In 1938" or "By 1976", it would be best if a comma were added after that. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Does Reference 1 cover all this ---> "In the late 1880s Birmingham and the surrounding region boasted many of the country's strongest football teams. Six of the region's leading clubs joined the first two national leagues set up in England, the Football League and the Football Alliance, but there were still many teams in the area keen to participate in league play. On May 31, 1889 a meeting took place at Birmingham's Grand Hotel with the view to forming a Birmingham & District League. A total of 17 clubs were invited but only 13 attended, of which 12 were selected to form the new league, to commence play in the 1889–90 season. The one club which sent a representative to the meeting but was not invited to take part in the league, for unknown reasons, was Worcester Rovers"? Does Reference 15 cover all this ---> "At the same time the catchment areas of the Regional League and the Midland Football Combination were increasingly converging, and by the early 1990s the standard of play and geographical coverage of the two competitions were considered to be almost identical. In 1994 a new competition was formed to cater for the best clubs previously split across the two leagues, and thus the Regional League lost ten of its member clubs to the new Midland Football Alliance, further reducing its own status"?

   Check and no I just needed to know whether or not the ref. covered the info. But, if trying to get to FA, it will be questioned. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the two references you query do cover the entirety of the text in question. If required, I am prepared to scan the pages of the book in question and send you the scans, let me know if this is necessary. The other points I have addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Apologies for not responding sooner, I've been away from my machine all weekend...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, Chris, but I'd put most of the red links back in. They do point to articles for entities that are potentially notable (e.g. the Warley clubs, the Kidderminster League), and the link referred to above only indicates red links should be removed when they are for things that are never likely to merit an article of their own. - fchd (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair point, I've put the red links back in for clubs/leagues which potentially might merit their own article further down the line...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • .....and in fact I've already eliminated some of them :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you to CTD for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)