Talk:Crewe Alexandra F.C./GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A scarlet kit was adopted for a short spell in the mid-1920s. - confused - is this scarlet different to red or is this an all-scarlet kit (sorta like liverpool...?)

The source is unclear (I think scarlet is the same as red). Probably best to remove that confusion as part of restructuring the section.  Done

The first sentence of para 3 of the Club identity section looks like it should go at the front or para 1...?  Done

Also - any (sourceable) information on that other money-spinner...away kits? - added.  Done

Any information on cost of tickets for Attendance section (not exact just general info) - Used data from BBC survey in 2017 - seems a reliable source.  Done

Any information on the supporters -(or hooligans) - do they have a nickname?

One song features the line "We are the Railwaymen" and that is the name used for the Supporters Society. Compared to other clubs, Crewe does not have a hooligan reputation (the article mentions arrests following clashes with Port Vale and Macclesfield fans, but I have not been able to find any reliable sources about organised hooligan groups at Crewe).  Done

actually...do they have a mascot? - added mention of Gresty the Lion to identity section  Done

Also - for even weighting, any other players of note between formation and 1980s would be good to add. - Repeat mention of Keenor; the three post-war stars were Blunstone, Bowles and Grobelaar.  Done

Earwig's copyvio detector shows some similarities with a 2008 BBC page. Looking at the version from 28 December 2007...maybe the article borrowed a few bits and pieces that might be good to reword a little to distance.  Done

Overall an engaging read. Possibly a little weighted to recent - but then given the long periods of poor form probably justified. Over to you. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough read and detailed feedback. Paul W (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2021 (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: - nice read/well done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)