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
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?
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
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?