Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AideDésintéressée ( talk · contribs) 18:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi! I'll start the review tonight. The article looks good to me so I don't think it will take a long time. Hopefully, it may be done before tomorrow evening! AideDésintéressée ( talk) 18:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. ( reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. ( OR):

   d. ( copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. ( major aspects):

   b. ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

Assessment

@ Wikipediæ philosophia @ Nehme1499

The whole article seems very good and solid to me. I have no complaints except a few minor issues (reference for the stadium's capacity and staff members who were not cited) that I've just corrected myself but I can now promote this article to GA class. Congratulations and thank you both for your all your work. AideDésintéressée  talk 19:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot! Wikipediæ philosophia ( talk) 19:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply