Talk:Partick Thistle F.C./GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Right - will take a look at this and drop some comments below - will copyedit as I read (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning!) cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead a bit short - some things to add:

Thistle have also won both the Scottish League Cup and the Scottish Cup on one occasion. - bit confusing to read - maybe add the years they were won.

Add their highest ever finish in the league and what year.

Overall, the history is slightly overemphasised on recent events. I'd buff some early bits - e.g. the Cup success and league progress section, a little more info on some of these finals, also maybe list some notable players from this mid 40s to mid 60s period. 1971 final needs sourcing.

Any info on why they were going bankrupt? better..ish. Any more info on the how the 1.5m quid debt came about would be good but not essential.....

Since 1936 the club have played in red-and-yellow jerseys of varying designs, with hoops, stripes and predominantly yellow tops with red trims having been used, although in 2009 a centenary kit was launched in the original navy-blue style to commemorate 100 years at Firhill Stadium - comes over as repetitive after the previous sentence mentioning 1936-37. - actually this line would go well in the lead and it can be rephrased for the body of the text.

citations needed in European record and some elsewhere - I tagged a few.

Make sure the references are properly formatted, not just raw links.

Also, IMDB not counted as a reliable source..

Overall, good structure and prose ok. Trying to give this a big a shove as possible to FAC. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - great, well done. nice work. I can ask some other folks to take a look and maybe one day it can be a Featured Article and it could be on the main page...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)