| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing the article significantly and would like the opinion of others as to how it should be classed on the quality scale. As well as any improvements that can be made.
Thanks, Cal Umbra (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
- Remove the word "currently" from the second sentence of the lead. It doesn't add to the meaning.
- In the first sentence of the second para, it should be "returned to" instead of "plays in" (although when precisely did the team return?). Also, remove the comma after "2010".
- "it was runners-up" -> "runner-up"
- "major cup success is" -> "major cup success was"
- These sorts of issues persist through the article. I would advise concentrating on tense and agreement. Falkirk were runners-up, but the club (singular) was runner-up.
- "coming runners-up on two occasions" -> "coming in second on two occasions" (use of "runners-up" gets tired)
- I don't think citation 3 is supported by the source. Where's the debate described?
- The history section seems short for a club with such a long history. Is there a separate history article (not just a list of seasons) that can be linked as a "for more about..." entry? If not, you might consider creating it.
- The layout is pretty good. But I think the prose needs a significant amount of work before it's ready even for GA status. Consider a submission to WP:GOCE for a copyedit before proceeding.--Batard0 (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- As for your question about where it fits on the quality scale, I'd put it at B. Decent, but not quite GA.--Batard0 (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help Batard0. I'll see to the things you've mentioned. Cal Umbra (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)