Talk:Belfast/GA2

GA review

I think all of the points have been addressed. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started reviewing this article for GA status, but ended up making a couple significant changes which might go beyond simply minor grammatical modifications. I think it's probably worthy of GA status, but I'd like another reviewer to look at it first.

One thing that could possibly hold it up, however, are the citations; while the article is well-referenced, the citations are not formatted very well, with many citations including only a single URL to a website or news article. Citations should included additional information, such as author, title, date published, who published it, and when the URL was retrieved, so as to make the citation useful even if the URL is no longer accessible. You might find WP:CITE useful in this regard.

Other than that, the article looks good! Good luck! Dr. Cash 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to get a second opinion, but after a one week lapse, with no major changes to the article or my suggestions, I think this article meets the GA criteria, so I am passing it! Editors should still review the reference citations and add necessary formatting details per WP:CITE, but it's good. Cheers! Dr. Cash 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]