# Talk:2002 Scottish Challenge Cup final

This review is transcluded from Talk:2002 Scottish Challenge Cup Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 18:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments

In the lead you have some sentences/paragraphs referenced, some others not.  Why?  Ordinarily a lead shouldn't contain information that isn't expanded on in the main article (so in general a lead needs no refs at all).
I have removed two references from the lead and left one which refers to the sponsorship name. Cal Umbra
"second appearance in the final of the tournament since losing" do you mean second appearance or first appearance since losing?  Or perhaps "second appearance ... having lost..."?
I reworded to "having lost" as it is the club's second appearance in a cup final ever. Cal Umbra
" game and scored the first goal in the 33rd minute from John O'Neill" -> "game with John O'Neill scoring the first goal in the 33rd minute".
Reworded as stated above. Cal Umbra
Be aware of football jargon like "header"... we have a glossary of terms you could hashlink to specific sections as required.
I have linked "header", "substitution" and "corner kick" to relevant articles. Cal Umbra
The lead you refer to it as using "elimination rounds" but the main article states (and links) it to be a "knock-out" tournament.  Would try to be consistent here.
Changed to "knock-out" for consistency. Cal Umbra
"28 of the teams " avoid starting sentences with a number.
Reworded the sentence. Cal Umbra
"two received random byes into the second round" is this referenced anywhere?
Provided a reference which mentions this. Cal Umbra
"produce a shock" is that a quote?  To stay neutral I'd ask for a reference or attributable quotation here.
Quoted "shock" and referenced to where it is mentioned. Cal Umbra
"The stadium had played host to" -> "The stadium hosted..."
Reworded as stated above. Cal Umbra
"Dumfries based" needs a hyphen.
Done, as requested. Cal Umbra
References should use WP:DASH where appropriate and should avoid SHOUTING too.
All references now contain "En dash" where appropriate and case has been lowered to sentence case where applicable. Cal Umbra 10:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


### GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Prose and style comments noted above.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

All-round good stuff, just need to address the above comments, so I'll place the nomination on-hold for a week.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)