# Talk:2000–01 S.L. Benfica season

@Threeohsix: – I believe I am done with a once-over copyedit. Since section 4 ("Players") has only a single subsection with a single sub-subsection, what do you think about merging the related information from section 2 ("Squad") into section 4? By moving section 2 down, I feel that the article might read better with the matches of the season coming first and extra details of exact squad coming later. Thoughts? ← scribbleink ᗧHᗣT 16:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Scribbleink: First, thanks for the work put into it, very good, and especially consider this no where near your area of interest. Regarding you're question, I've recently been aware that "squad" tables like that are excessive, and that it's only needed the table at the end, with games played. You're free to remove it, and join transfers with statistics. Hope you can also do 1999–2000 S.L. Benfica season in the future, since the expertise you've gained with this C/E will make it easier for you to do it.--Threeohsix (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Threeohsix: You're welcome. I try to keep my Wikipedia experience improving by learning about the WP:MOS of different WikiProjects. The one for football is new to me, but it wasn't terribly complicated. Glad you like the outcome. Regarding the table excessiveness, I'm really not an expert on determining what to remove and what to keep. Since you, or other editors, have more experience with a broader set of football-related articles, I urge you (or other editors) to please simplify it. I have tried to follow the manual of style example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. If you stick to it and just change the tables, we should be golden. For now, I believe I am done with the copyedit request. I will continue to watch the page and participate as and when necessary. ← scribbleink ᗧHᗣT 16:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Thanks for the work, I'll do that. Just a heads up, regarding WP:ALSO, you shouldn't repeat links, that already exist in the article, but links to "tangentially related topics". Hope I see you again editing one of my requests. --Threeohsix (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2000–01 S.L. Benfica season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Parutakupiu (talk · contribs) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

In my view, this article has what it takes to be considered a Good Article. The only aspect that will require more attention and care in future (and more demanding) reviews is the quality of the prose, which needs substantial improvement. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary: 
Relies too much on a single source (Record), but I understand it gets harder finding varied references for such "old seasons". Good use of source archiving, though.
C. No original research: 

D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
A quite fair description and analysis of the club's poorest season ever.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
If you cannot find an image of the squad, maybe one of the coach(es), or the top scorer.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Parutakupiu I admit that the prose it is not perfect, but I'm not experienced enough to write with the quality that you might expect. I requested to c/e to "polish" it, but the quality of the improvements depends on the familiarity of the copy-editer with the subject. It's not science or math, but knowing a extensive vocabulary about football is important. Also, because "Record" is the only available source, it limits the amount of detail it is put into the article. I chose not to add picture of manager of coach, because they are optional to GAN. If it would be a deal-breaker, I would add them. --Threeohsix (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Threeohsix, I know. That's why I passed it on criterium 1a, because the current level is enough for GA status. I actually refrained myself from doing some copyediting because of this and because I can help you on that in future reviews. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)