Talk:Wanderers F.C./GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll begin this review by looking over and making straightforward copyedits (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning), and will jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

the Wanderers were among the most dominant teams of the early years of organised football - gah! " most dominant" sounds weird - I'd go for " most successful" or just "dominant"

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

who had left Harrow School in the same year - had he left (i.e. before matriculation), or graduated? if the latter then state so.

Harrow is a secondary school, so does not have matriculation/graduation. The source says something to the effect that he "finished his education" there, so I have changed it to that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The following year, the club played its first match under the name Wanderers Football Club - better not to use bold in body of article. Italics can be used for emphasis here.

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

that some of the club's members were opposed to this idea - why not just " that some of the club's members opposed this idea"

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise looking pretty good. I know a bit about soccer and can't think of anything else contentwise. Funny how the team vanished without a trace really.Any other info on how it was run? board? monies? etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The club was run by an elected committee, I will see if I can find an appropriate place to squeeze that in. As an amateur club consisting of wealthy members of the upper classes playing largely for their own enjoyment, the club's own finances probably didn't extend much beyond petty cash, I don't think there's really anything to add about that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, even just explaining that - well, any material which is sourced is helpful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 1 March 2011 (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: - actually, it's fine now. If you do get a little bit more to add on structure it's a bonus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'd place it in the Formation section. Not a great fit but it is the only place where there is any other info related to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable claim

The article notes that "In 2009, over 120 years after the last known Wanderers match, a "reformed" Wanderers club was founded in London, reportedly with the endorsement of the founders of the original club."

I'd be interested to know how many of the founders of the original club were around to endorse the new club in 2009? Perhaps some candidates for the list of the verified oldest people? Or was this reported by a medium? ;) Number 57 14:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that last clause is a doozy. Ummm...time to review the original ref... I have reworded it myself ("descendants" was missing..ahaa). Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)