Talk:Newport Association Football Club Ltd and others v Football Association of Wales Ltd/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Well done The C of E, apologies for the delay. I would suggest looking for a fact to nominate to DYK.--Llewee (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 19:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The C of E, I will be reviewing this article. Use  Done template or strikethrough to indicate an issue has been dealt with.

  • "and were a number of clubs" - Add "one of" after "were"
  • "industrial South Wales" - add a link to South Wales valleys
  • "viewed the new company was a continuation of the old" - change "was" to "as"
  • "however they were barred by Newport City Council from using their old Somerton Park ground as the council viewed the new company was a continuation of the old and asserted they owed back rent for the ground.[3] Whereas the FAW ruled they were a new club with no connection to Newport County.[4]" - How is this section relevant to the wider story?
  • "they banned them and any other Welsh club playing in the English leagues below the Football League from playing their home matches in Wales" - How did they have the power to do this?
  • "whom became referred to by the Welsh press as the "Irate Eight"." - Change "became" to "began to be".
  • "excessive costs in playing 80 miles away" - Change "in" to "of".
  • "They also cited inconsistencies in application as Merthyr Tydfil played in the Football Conference yet were allowed to play their home games in Wales and had permission to continue to play in Wales if they were relegated" - The text above said that Merthyr were blocked from playing in Wales.
  • "was needed in order to protect Welsh representation in order to partake in UEFA run European competitions" - Could you clarify the what is meant by "Welsh representation"?
  • "He also recognised that there was a genuine risk that the clubs could cease to exist if they played another season away from home due to the financial burdens." - Add apostrophes on every side of " if they played another season away from home".
  • No dates are mentioned in the case section.
  • "jurisdiction for disciplinary matters relating to the Welsh clubs in English leagues" - change "for" to "of"
  • "remained being dealt with by the FAW" - change to "remained with the FAW"
    • I've just made a start on fixing some of them. I'll try to do a little digging for the rationale. As for the new club/old club argument it ties into the fact that they didn't ban the Football League clubs. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Llewee: I've added the dates. As for the FAW's power to do so, after having looked further, I'm afraid it seems that the FAW just simply declared they were creating that rule because Newport were a FAW member and Newport initially just obeyed rather than any specific legal powers to do so. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Apologies for the delayed response. I will respond by the end of tomorrow (Well today now I suppose). Llewee (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @The C of E:, I've done a number of spot checks on sources. It's possible I'm missing a section due to Reach PLC's approach to website design but I don't think source seven includes the information that comes before it? Llewee (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can you check through the sources to insure their are not any similar mistakes?--Llewee (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llewee: It all seems in order to me. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the article through earwig (https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Newport+Association+Football+Club+Ltd+and+others+v+Football+Association+of+Wales+Ltd&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0). The highest overlap was at 23.7%. That's not a major concern but the last article I passed was at a similar level and it became an issue at DYK. I would therefore encourage you to try and reduce similarities in wording.Llewee (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llewee: I've looked through that and I think a majority were false positives because they were highlighting the case name, nouns (such as the FAW) and generic phrases in areas that didn't relate to the relevant part of the cite. The only part which I would say did have a close paraphrasing were the bits about "home matches", which I have reworded. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it has now gone down slightly. Llewee (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    You don't need citations in the lead.--Llewee (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Are their any relevant images available?--Llewee (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    • @Llewee: Citations removed from the lede, as for the images there isn't much one could add for a court case as there would have been no photos inside. Short of doing something with Newport's English home or something (which I'm not sure adds much), I'm not sure what I could suggest. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Thank you @Llewee:. As for your closing comment, I am currently under a TBAN from DYK so I'm not able to do that. If you wish to nominate it yourself, that is your choice but I am not allowed to participate in any way. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newport_Association_Football_Club_Ltd_and_others_v_Football_Association_of_Wales_Ltd/GA1&oldid=1214707837"