Talk:Midland Football Alliance

Football: England / English non-league Low‑importance

	Association football portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the English non-league task force (assessed as Low-importance).

West Midlands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands 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.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Midland Football Alliance 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
Date	Process	Result
August 4, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
September 10, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Old post

This page should really be at Midland Football Alliance.

Yes. And now it is!--ALargeElk 11:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Leics League

All reference to the Leics Senior League feeding into the MFA has been removed - has the promotion status of that league changed? ChrisTheDude 07:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Midland Football Alliance/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be conducting a review of this article in the next few days. - Nick C (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
A few red links, could create these pages or redirect to the article. Done

Could add the runners-up to the "Champions" table. Done

Although FA regulations officially state that only one club may be promoted from a Step 5 league, the Alliance has sent up to three clubs up to higher leagues in a single season, as in 2007 Leamington, Romulus and Quorn were all promoted. - Could expand on why three clubs were promoted rather than just one. Done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
If possible, could add the winners and runners-up of the League Cup and the Joe McGorian Cup, as it is related to this league. Done
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A very nicely written and carefully referenced article. With just a few improvements as listed above, I believe this article can achieve GA status. - Nick C (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review, I will add in the runners-up and the cup winners later today. I'll also have a go at knocking up quick stubs for the redlinked clubs - redirecting to this page would not be appropriate as they would have played in multiple other leagues during their respective histories. There is no definitive answer, however, as to why more than one team has been promoted, apparently contrary to FA rules, other than to presume that numbers needed to be made up in the higher-level leagues (and I can't source that to a RS). Would it be easier to remove this bit, as I don't think it's vital......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just double-checked the FA regulations and can find no mention os the "only one club per league" bit, so either I dreamt that up or it was outdated info. I've therefore rewritten that paragrpah accordingly..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now addressed all the points raised above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I think I'm going to upgrade it to GA status. Congratulations! - Nick C (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Midland Football Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]