Talk:Celtic Park/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by BigDom in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: BigDom (talk · contribs) 18:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    Just the few minor comments below. Fixed
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    I can't read the Herald articles for some reason but I'll AGF that the info cited to them is there.
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Minor issues resolved - Passing this one


Comments
  • It says the rent was increased from £50 to £450 but was this per week, per month or per year? Same with the Hampden Park rent later on. Best just to make it clear.
  • "Celtic Park was an elongated oval shape, similar to Hampden Park." - this sentence seems out of place to me after a paragraph about capacity and record attendances but not sure where else it could go
  • "Writing in 1996, Simon Inglis noted that the approaches to the Main Stand is an area of urban deprivation "reminiscent of Belfast during the Troubles". - the approaches ... is; can you just fix this so the verb matches the subject

If you can just have a look at these comments and fix them I'll be happy to pass this as GA. Cheers, BigDom 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think that's all the issues fixed now. Adam4267 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I agree, this passes the GA criteria now. Good work, BigDom 01:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply