Talk:Celtic F.C. in European football/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. I will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The club is best known for their European Cup final victory over Inter Milan in 1967, becoming the first British team and only Scottish team to win the trophy. - let facts speak for themselves, I'd change to, "The club became the first British team and only Scottish team to win the European Cup, by beating Inter Milan in the 1967 final." - Done (ShugSty 18/3/17)


 * At the end of the first para of First entries into European competition, you should add that they were beaten on aggregate and eliminated from the competition. Done (ShugSty 18/3/17)


 * Stevie Chalmers and Ian Young were both sent off, albeit controversially. - "albeit" unnecessary and should be pruned. Maybe add why they were sent off? Done (ShugSty 18/3/17)


 * although a last minute Bobby Lennox "goal" was controversially disallowed in the second leg  - goal does not need to be in quotes here Done (ShugSty 18/3/17)


 * why does the last sentence of para 4 of Glory years have so many refs? Sorted (ShugSty 18/3/17)

'Actually the East Germans were'' unimpressive (although they did win the tie). I'll have a re-look and try to re-phrase. 20/3/17 - I've now rephrased to "...were knocked out by East German side Sachsenring Zwickau, whose play was unimpressive despite winning the tie.." (ShugSty 20/3/17)'''
 * works for me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Overall things look promising. One fiddly issue is the tone of writing - the enthusiasm of writers can be really good for making engaging (rather than dry) prose, but is best done when subtle - let facts speak for themselves. See this for instance. The prose is enthusiastic but I am worried it is a little too effusive in places. Anyway, am reading over. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality: - one issue above and am reading through again....
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources: (Earwig's tool is clear) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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: - nearly there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)