Wikipedia:Peer review/Gibraltar national football team results/archive1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has the potential to become a feature list. I believe the list entries (matches) are as detailed as possible with notable information and each entry is referenced. The main area I wanted reviewing was the introduction. Prose has never been my strong point but I've tried to include as much detail as possible without it being too long. I would appreciate any feedback and welcome any suggestions for improvement. Also any comment on whether this list has a chance at becoming a featured list.

Thanks, 6ii9 (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6ii9 Many thanks for your work thus far. Sorry that you have not received any responses yet. I will be sure to leave some comments in the next few days. Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your list certainly has a chance at becoming a featured list, and there are many prose editors at FLC who can help out
• Okay so the second and third sentences both start with "it" – not ideal; looking at their content, I'm not sure that "which encompasses the countries of Europe" is necessary; how about rephrasing to It's governing body is the Gibraltar Football Association (GFA) and it competes as a member of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA).?
  • Done: removed the unnecessary content and used the sentence you provided -- 6ii9 (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• would link "friendlies" to Exhibition game
  • Done: added links -- 6ii9 (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The first and second sentences of the second paragraph begin with "Gibraltar" – try to switch up one of these
  • Done: reworded the second sentence -- 6ii9 (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As a non-soccer/football editor I have no idea what "one-nil" means
  • Done: Replaced "one-nil" with『1–0』-- 6ii9 (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The biggest thing I'm concerned about it the color accessibility (see MOS:ACCESS) – for colorblind people why try to include a mark with colors to make it clearer, see the key in DNA and RNA codon tables (which is currently at FLC) for a good example of this.
  • Not done: With this one, would symbols definitely be necessary as the score would indicate the match result? -- 6ii9 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no other major issues; I'll give this a source review if/when it's at FLC and look at the table closer there. Aza24 (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you -- 6ii9 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]