Talk:Tranmere Rovers F.C./GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll begin a review now and make straightforward copyedits as I go. (Hey I thought this looked familiar...here we go again) Please revert if I inadvertently guff the meaning. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, scanning over it - that if you feel you've added everything you want to, then merging with History of Tranmere Rovers F.C. looks to me like a good idea. If you look at Wikipedia:FA#Sport_and_recreation and scan some of the football FAs such as Sunderland A.F.C., York City F.C., and Luton Town F.C. for starters, you can see they are big or bigger than a combination of the two articles on Tranmere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles were split because the history bit was so long (not to mention unreferenced, and a copyright infringement). It's somewhat slimmer now, and could go back. Here's a test merge. However, I note that this comes to 65k in size, and WP:SIZERULE suggests that such an article should be divided. U+003F^? 10:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaa, no they are two different measurements - the readable prose size is only 17 kB (2908 words) - you can put the tool in your monobook here at User:Dr pda/prosesize.js - once loaded you get a "page size" in your toolbox in hte left hand column. Very useful. So this could be double the size and not need splitting. I think a single merged article is a major improvement and something that could with some polish and review end up at FAC. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the pointer. A couple of questions: can I just perform a merge now, or does it have to be put up for discussion? And: can the GA review carry on, or would it have to be restarted after such a big change to the article? U+003F^? 13:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the questions, I've fired ahead and merged the two articles. U+003F^? 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, on to business....some comprehensiveness queries first.

~~You have both "Superwhites" and "Super whites" in the article, choose one (like occurs in sources) and align all the spelling.~~

Done U+003F^? 11:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Anything about the club badge/emblem? And have their been more than one?~~

Done U+003F^? 12:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Anything about rivalries?~~

Done U+003F^? 12:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Anything about fans? fanzines? publications both official and unofficial?~~

Done U+003F^? 12:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now prose/referencing queries.....

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

- just one tag to fix.

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:

- ~~just one tag to fix but looking good~~. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag fixed in my absence! U+003F^? 23:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so it was, ok done then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]