Jump to content

Talk:History of Burnley F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHistory of Burnley F.C. is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starHistory of Burnley F.C. is part of the Burnley F.C. series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 29, 2022.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 5, 2021Good article nomineeListed
September 3, 2021Featured topic candidatePromoted
September 8, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Removed text

[edit]

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section removed from the article by me. I'm leaving it here in case its removal breaks any references, and for future reference. Reason for removal: off-topic for this article. Baffle☿gab 05:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From "Decline and near oblivion (1976–1987)"

[edit]

Although, in retrospect, this only served to blur the lines between the professional and semi-professional leagues, at the time it was perceived that teams losing league status might never recover from this.[1]

References

  1. ^ Quelch (2017), p. 53

Baffle☿gab 05:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Burnley F.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casliber, thanks for taking this review. I'll keep an eye on it. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: - nice work. Fine for GA - I'd suggest another prose run-through if thinking of FAC, but I am not so good on pickups after first run through...good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber Thank you very much for this review! All the best and take care. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]