Talk:2020 EFL League Two play-off final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2020 EFL League Two play-off final has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2020Good article nomineeListed
September 14, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
January 24, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 13, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 2020 EFL League Two play-off Final is believed to be the first competitive match played behind closed doors at Wembley Stadium?
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2020 EFL League Two play-off Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The three promoted teams were Plymouth Argyle, Crewe Alexandra and Swindon Town (as champions). - a style thing - why would you not list them in order of placings?
  • while had been relegated to the fourth tier and remained there since the 2011–12 season. - err, a subject missing here?
  • Three minutes in and following a free kick, Watson's shot was blocked by Exeter City - this looks weird using player/club here - it'd be good to find out name(s) of city blockers or just maybe say "'City players"
  • In the Post-match section, I think the last sentence could be moved to the top of the previous para and make a single para.

Otherwise a fine read with very little to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber I've addressed all the above, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thanks for picking this up, much obliged. Better get on and nominate some more now...! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: 'nuff said....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviewed: Death to 2020
  • Comment: So this now just creeps outside the seven days but it was ready to go yesterday (see here) when the Arbcom amendment received a majority, it just took until today to be formally closed. If we can't IAR on this, I understand.

Improved to Good Article status by The Rambling Man (talk). Self-nominated at 11:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Whilst technically nominated a day late, due to the extenuating circumstances mentioned, I believe WP:IAR applies here. We can't expect TRM to have nominated this in time when he was prevented by Arbcom from doing so- to reject this nomination based on being one day over time would be dumb and pointy in my view
  • checkY Article is long enough (12216 characters), is a GA, article is well sourced, and is within policy. Copyvio tool flags 32% chance of copyvios, but these are all from limited quoting, which is acceptable and not a copyvio
  • checkY ALT0 is short enough, interesting and well cited. Believed to be matches the assertion of the source, so is appropriate here. ALT1 is also short enough, and well cited, but I believe its less interesting
  • checkY QPQ done
  • Overall this nomination passes, congratulations. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]