This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Yorkshire Low‑importance 1997 Football League First Division play-off final is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Football: England / Sheffield United Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Sheffield United task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

	1997 Football League First Division play-off final is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 21, 2020 Good article nominee Listed January 29, 2021 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 14, 2021 Featured article candidate Promoted May 23, 2021 Good topic candidate Promoted January 22, 2024 Good topic removal candidate Demoted Current status: Featured article

• 1st legs  Done
• 2nd legs  Done

• Sheffield United history  Done
• Crystal Palace history  Done
• Soccerbase + Palace top scorer  Done
• Sheff Utd top scorer  Done
• head to head  Done
• The Guardian  Not done
• The Guardian  Done
• Liverpool Echo  Done
• L'Echo ii  Not done
• Sunday World  Done
• Aberdeen Evening Express Sky Sports  Done
• Irish Independent  Done
• Aberdeen Press & Journal share prices  Not done

• CRY v SHU Play Off Final 1997 (Television production). Crystal Palace F.C. 1997. Retrieved 27 October 2020.  Done
  • Palace team numbers: 00:06:43
  • United team numbers: 00:07:48
• The Independent  Done
• The Guardian  Done
• Ab P & J  Done
• Evening Herald  Done
• Irish Independent  Done
• more on shares  Not done
• Evening Herald  Not done
• EH again  Not done
• Reading Post  Not done
• Irish Indy  Done

• London News Online  Not done RS?
• The Guardian  Done
• The Guardian share price  Done

This review is transcluded from Talk:1997 Football League First Division play-off Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay taking a look...you know the drill :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is well-written and flows nicely (neither issue below is a deal-breaker as such):

• Not sure how strongly you feel about it, but I reckon the second and third paras are better combined. there is a natural flow of information. Looks a little choppy as is but then again I am looking at it on a honking great widescreen....

  I think the third para is different information. First is background, second is match, third is consequence, and on my laptop it looks fine (and I have a reasonably sizeable horizontal resolution. So I think I'll leave it, especially based on the fact that my experiences of general readership is that most people use (much) narrower resolution than me. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  fair point Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it worth putting player positions in para 2 as descriptors?

  Perhaps, but I'm always wary of seas of blue. If need be, the reader can refer to the details section to find out the positions. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the body...

• I'd put " the second tier of the English football league system," inside an unspaced mdash or spaced ndash rather than commas but not a strong issue...

  En-dashes (because I don't like em-dashes, too long). The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, player positions as descriptors (not a deal-breaker)...

  Similar to above, the conflation of player's names and their positions usually ends up in a sea of blue. Rephrasing to avoid that often results in more awkward prose. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The match was estimated in the media to be worth between £8–10 million to the winning team. - needs to be "The match was estimated in the media to be worth between £8 and 10 million to the winning team." or "The match was estimated in the media to be worth £8–10 million to the winning team."

  Gone for the latter. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise reads very well and is on track for GA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - just quibbling really Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber cheers, thanks very much for the review so far. I've addressed your comments. I wondered how you felt about the use of the video hosted by one of the club's official websites to provide a much more comprehensive match summary? I have a couple of FAs-in-waiting for which I could access official footage but didn't want to go to all the trouble/time if it was going to get to FAC and be blown away. If there's anything else for the GAN, please don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - my take on that would be (a) are they reliable sources? Answer:yes, though primary. Which means they should be okay for straightforward observations and on big claims/inferences. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]