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

Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAG UAR  17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Ref 22: the website field should be "BBC Sport"

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

   No original research found.

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.:

   NPOV

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Excellent article, I couldn't find anything wrong with it. It meets the GA criteria, so by all means I'll promote this now. Well done! JAG UAR  12:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Jaguar: Thank you for your comments! I  updated ref 22. All the best, Mz7 ( talk) 17:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC) reply