Talk:Celtic Park/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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.
  • I would guess per annum on the first, but the source material isn't clear on this point. The second is per annum. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I thought INglis would have mentioned in his book that it was per annum. I've added another ref for it now. Adam4267 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• "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)

I think that's all the issues fixed now. Adam4267 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this passes the GA criteria now. Good work, BigDom 01:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)