Talk:2009–10 York City F.C. season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good article2009–10 York City F.C. season has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 3, 2010Good article nomineeListed
August 25, 2016Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Good article

Book reference

I was just curious to know what the "general" book reference was used for? It says it was published in 2008, but this article covers 2009–10, so I can't see what value it would be here. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that shouldn't have been there. Removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is . The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the

nomination
for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: No dabs found

Linkrot: 2 dead links repaired.[1] –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Checking against GA criteria

here
for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Most of Foyle's pre-season signings came towards the end of the previous season, with the signings of Michael Gash for £55,000 and Djoumine Sangaré on a free transfer being the only arrivals during the 2009–10 pre-season transfer window. The league season saw a new record for consecutive wins set, with eight victories from 14 November 2009 to 23 January 2010, as the team finished fifth in the league and so qualified for the Conference National play-offs. Overuse of the word season here.  Done
    Replaced one instance of "season" with "campaign". Mattythewhite (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
    All sources appear reliable, all check out.
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )
    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Just one minor point to be addressed. On Hold. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for the fix, I am happy to pass this as GA status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--

talk) 11:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 19:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]