Talk:Billy Bremner/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK - will jot notes as I go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd meld the lead into 2 or 3 paragraphs with no standalone sentences


 * The club also finished second in numerous competitions, finishing second in the league five times and runners-up in seven cup finals, including the 1975 European Cup.  - could rejig this to use the word "second" (or "runners-up") only once....


 *  religion based - needs a hyphen I think...


 *  The 1967–68 season had a slow start but soon picked up... - the season or the club had a slow start?


 *  despite the player wanting the move to go ahead as he desperately wanted to return to Scotland to be with his fiancée - could try to trim this. "despite the player wanting to return to Scotland to be with his fiancée" (middle redundant I think)


 *  He made the club more professional for the 1979–80 campaign, introducing massages and changing the canteen and the team kit - let facts speak for themselves --> "He introduced massages and changed the canteen and team kit for the 1979–80 campaign,"

NB: I've merged some short paras - keeping them strictly season-by-season makes the prose a bit too choppy. Have merged some but check for flow.

Overall an engaging read. GA status is feasible once some fixes are done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 40 days have passed since this review was placed on review. Are there outstanding fixes to be made? Thanks, C679 19:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * whoops, I completely forgot about this one! ok, now just needs 2 tags need citing and I think we're done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, done that, thanks.--EchetusXe 00:16, 15 March 2015 (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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)