Jump to content

Talk:1922–23 Cardiff City F.C. season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1922–23 Cardiff City F.C. season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 08:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

[edit]
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]
In all honesty, your guess is as good as mine. I bolded the part I did as it's the closest form of the title I could get in the opening, happy to change if there's a preferred method. Kosack (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no consensus, it's fine. Might be a question for WP:FOOTY. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looked it up, there is a style guide on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons, if you could meet that, I'll promote. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the opening to be more inline with that MOS. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Away kits were much more of a rarity in this era and there's no sourcing I can find that refers to alternate shirts being worn and what colour they were. Kosack (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I assumed as much, but thought I'd checked Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background and preseason

[edit]
Our own article would suggest not. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately The Times simply attributed articles to "our football correspondent" during that era. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Division

[edit]
In British football, it is more common for the score to be written in favour of the team being mentioned rather than a home/away basis. Kosack (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well exactly, is this not right, considering you are mentioning Cardiff, and they were defeated? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I explained that poorly then. What I mean is, the team is the focus not the scoreline, so you would say "Cardiff lost 3–2 in the game" for example, so the sentence is geared toward the club rather than the scoreline. It would be odd to say "Cardiff lost one three in their last game". I believe the American style of writing generally prefers the scoreline to be home away based but Biritah English doesn't. Kosack (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a single MOS on this, which I was suprised about. I've seen a lot of the snooker sources write this way. No worries. I have one more issue, then it's ready to promote. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cup matches

[edit]
The reason for the use of first names with Jack Evans and Len Davies is due to the fact that there was more than one player on the the team with the same surname (Herbie Evans & Ben Davies). All four players played regularly during the season so saying "Evans scored the goal" could mean either player. Kosack (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! My mistake. I didn't really check the names. Fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Kosack (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a table heading to each results section now and moved the references there. Kosack (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ideal Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Player details

[edit]
All of the players would meet WP:NFOOTY so are linked. Kosack (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No author in The Times articles of the era unfortunately. Kosack (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This belief proved well founded as Cardiff went on to finish as runners-up in the First Division, missing out on the title on the final day of the season through goal average. - Goal average? not goal difference? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, goal average was used in this era rather than the goal difference used today. Kosack (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & References

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]
@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for picking this up. I've addressed all of the points listed so far. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kosack - sorry for the delay - Managed to put a lot on myself. I've added a few things Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: No problem, thanks for finishing up. I think I've addressed all of the issues above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I had to change the lead slightly as per MOS:BOLDAVOID, but other than that, it's good. Promoting. Thanks for your quick responses. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]