Talk:1987 Football League Second Division play-off final/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Taking a look now....

• Okay I can see why Charlton played in blue in the third match but why did they in the first two matches....

  They didn't. Good spot. Plus the second leg has them the wrong way round too! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  Now fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• No material on which side was favoured by writers before the series?

  I have searched paper sources (on Charlton and Leeds), Guardian archives, Times archives, BNA, Gale and nothing. I guess it was new and a bit of a lottery. A two-stage cup competition, where anything could happen... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• I can't see anywhere where "Heathrow Agreement" is explained (as in why it has that name)

  I suspect the meetings were probably held in facilities at Heathrow Airport. Explained a bit more about the overall aim of the agreement. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• In the Background subsection of the Match section, the middle short para of two sentences looks odd - it could be split with each piece moved to the front of the corresponding bit of the club section like this...?

  Cheers, reworked per your suggestions. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• In the Summary subsection of the First leg - the first ref goes to here....?

  Gah, fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

NB:Earwig's copyvio is clear

Otherwise seeing very little to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Casliber I think I've addressed your concerns, but do let me know if I missed anything? Cheers for the review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:27, 19 March 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: a nice read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)