Talk:History of Crystal Palace F.C./GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Casliber in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

*When a league re-organisation occurred in 1920 and a new Football League Division was formed featuring the majority of the Southern League Division One the club became founder members and inaugural champions of the Football League Third Division. - I'd reword this, a bit hard to follow....

*If you can think of another verb to use instead of "relegate", it'd be good for the prose to slot it in occasionally....

*The first 1.5 paras predate 1905 in the first section (titled 1905-20). It leaves me curious as to why there is no link to the former club (only 40 odd years, so surely folks involved in the latter talked to folks from the former....) given the identical name. Is there more discussion in the source? Maybe move the first 1.5 paras into a section called Background and formation or somesuch...

    • There's no discussion in the source, there are very little records on the original club and no evidence of a link between that club and the Crystal Palace itself beyond the name has been established in written records. I've rewritten the text to better reflect the sources, a lot of the text was originally merged from the 1861 club's article. See this edit. Hiding T 10:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • The idea of a club at Crystal Palace was first proposed in 1904 by the Crystal Palace Company. - err, no it wasn't as one existed 40 years before. I'd remove the "first" here..
  • Double check that you link to other articles once at first instance - also check that unusual things are linked to (e.g. other clubs etc.)

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:   not hugely convinced about the need for an image of di Stefano, but I appreciate it can be hard adorning some of these articles with enough appropriate images.
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  


Overall:

Pass or Fail:   - looks all in order now. Maybe get another lookover and have a crack at FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply