# Talk:1891–92 Sheffield United F.C. season

This review is transcluded from Talk:1891–92 Sheffield United F.C. season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The C of E (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  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, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I'll review this, Overall I think it is well written. Since most of the sources are offline, I am going to AGF on them. I do think that there are a few prose issues that should be sorted out before I can pass this:

The first line of the second lead paragraph should have a comma after Woolstinholm
Done.
No need to link Woolstinholm when he's already been linked earlier in the main body of text
Not sure where you mean?
It's where you linked him in the lead and then linked to him again in the first paragraph.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that calling the accusations acrimonious fulfills WP:LABEL
It's how it's described in the source but removed.
It seems a bit of a violation of WP:PEA to describe teams as strong
Altered
Per MOS:OPED, losses should not be described as disappointing.
Altered
The last sentence of the Northern League section, "They" is used a bit much, might be better to say that United wanted to review the ballot papers to clarify.
Revised.
The Club can't get angry as a non-living thing, don't you mean that it angered the club directors?
Revised.
I would also remove the word further after that as the article at the moment only says that the decision annoyed them.
Not sure I agree - the initial decision to place United in Div 2 and Wednesday in Div 1 angered the directors, the FA's refusal to release the papers also angered them and made the situation worse, so a description of it 'angering them further' seems aposite?
Again per OPED, I'd change "easily dispatched"
Altered.
Kilnhurst should be linked when first mentioned.
Kilnhurst F.C. don't have a WP article (and don't meet football notability so will never have) so there's nothing to link to.  I omitted a wiki link to avoid a perpetual redlink
In the results, It should really have the city next to the ground name, otherwise who would know where South Bank were from for example?
Done
Otherwise, picture licenses are fine (As I'd expect them to be given the time period) Just need to iron out these issues and I'll clear it.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've updated most of the above but have a couple of further queries / points. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Updated the last outstanding point. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
All OK. We have a new Good Article. Congratulations.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1891–92 Sheffield United F.C. season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502140012/http://www.sufc.co.uk/page/Home to http://www.sufc.co.uk/page/Home
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)