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)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
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:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Minor issues resolved - Passing this one

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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
"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, Big Dom 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, Big Dom 01:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]