# Talk:2023 EFL Championship play-off final

This review is transcluded from Talk:2023 EFL Championship play-off final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Amakuru (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Canary757 (talk · contribs) 16:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Hi, review incoming.Canary757 (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have made a start reviewing this article and I am very confident we can get this to a GA pass. Some initial observations.
Several references have their authors and authorship dates, but several don't, namely 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18 and 35.
Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I think reference 14 isn't the best source available here as it is a long database so I would add two specific match reports such as [1] and [2].
Done, although not sure I entirely agree - 11v11 is usually regarded as a reliable source for football topics; anyway, I've added the two refs you requested as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
In a match described by BBC Sport's Ged Scott as both "poor and tense" - The reference (ref 6) says "in a tense but poor". If using quotation marks I think they should match.
Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Coventry's stadium is described as the CBS arena in one usage and the Coventry Building Society Arena later on, I think the same name should be used for each.
Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
In the summary section: on 41 minutes, the ball went into the Coventry goal off Adebayo's arm following a Callum Doyle goal-line clearance. - Recommend clearly stating that this was disallowed as use of the hand can be missed by officials on occasions.
Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Wembley Stadium is wikilinked in the background section, however Wembley is first used at the end of the previous section. (scoreline which sent them through to the Wembley final against Luton Town)
I've reworded the sentence from the previous paragraph so it no longer mentions Luton or Wembley - this seems a bit redundant there. So the mention at the start of "Background" is now the first in the body.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I've made a few tweaks to the article, please check them and I will get back to you with part two of the review. Thanks. Canary757 (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Canary757: no issues with your tweaks, and I think I've handled the issues raised so far. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks,
Ref 8 is still missing authorship
Done.
Ref 1 is missing 2 authors and is paywalled so access=subscription could be added
Added authors, but is it really paywalled? It loads without any pop-ups for me...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
penalty shoot-out should be linked in both lead and main section
Done.
I have made 2 small edits to article, hope they are okay?
Yes, looks fine. Thanks.
Canary757 (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
@Canary757: above tranche done. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Article is well written, broad and focused. MOS is fine, no copyvio issues, verifiable, reliably sourced. No OR. It's stable and neutral. The Athletic reference fades after a few seconds for me but only a minor quibble. Happy to pass, congrats. Canary757 (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)