Talk:1992 Football League Cup final
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | 1992 Football League Cup final has been listed as one of theSports and recreation good articles under thegood article criteria. If you can improve it further,please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you canreassess it. Review: August 23, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is ratedGA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
the photo said Les Sealey but the words indicated schmeichel instead?
as Sealey's profile indicated that he was on loan in 91-92 season, so it should be schmeichel?— Precedingunsigned comment added byEm 88 (talk •contribs)13:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Reviewer:Stevie fae Scotland (talk·contribs)10:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review the article over the course of the day, I'll probably make several revisions to this page before complete but I will send you a message once complete. Thanks for your work on the article so far, it looks in good shape.Stevie fae Scotland (talk)10:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both teams progressed...sentence to the second paragraph and add another sentence to the opening paragraph with he result.
Stevie fae Scotland (talk)14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stevie fae Scotland (talk)14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they won the tie 4–1 after a late goal from Cambridge United.- Could we name the Cambridge player or is it unknown?
Stevie fae Scotland (talk)14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
League Cup Final- Lower case F
Despite Forest's efforts, they couldn't equalise and Manchester United won 1–0.
Stevie fae Scotland (talk)14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs an aftermath section. Things like the reaction to the result, what it meant for United and Forest's seasons, when would be the next time either of these sides were in the final again?
Stevie fae Scotland (talk)14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1.Well-written: | ||
 | 1a. the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | A couple of minor things to tidy up. |
| 1b. it complies with theManual of Style guidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation. | |
| 2.Verifiable withno original research: | ||
| 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline. | Spot check on 1, 9, 16, 24, 30. |
| 2b.reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Most sources are local or national newspapers, all relibale. Quotes properly attributed. |
| 2c. it containsno original research. | |
| 2d. it contains nocopyright violations orplagiarism. | Checked withEarwig's Copyvio Detector |
| 3.Broad in its coverage: | ||
| 3a. it addresses themain aspects of the topic. | Only thing missing is an aftermath section outlining the reaction to the match. |
| 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary style). | |
| 4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
| 5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoingedit war or content dispute. | |
| 6.Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio: | ||
| 6a. media aretagged with theircopyright statuses, andvalid non-free use rationales are provided fornon-free content. | All images tagged with appropriate licences |
| 6b. media arerelevant to the topic, and havesuitable captions. | Images are of the stadium, players involved and players who missed the match. Only caption note would be that the Pearce picture (unlike the McClair picture) doesn't say that it is recent and not contemporaneous whereas the Robson photo next to it is. |
| 7.Overall assessment. | |
I feel like this article is GA worthy even before I've properly reviewed it. This is genuinely one of the best I've seen. Thanks for all your work on this. A few tweaks and we'll be good to go.Stevie fae Scotland (talk)16:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
