Talk:Glasgow/GA2

GA Review notes
OK - I'll begin a list of fixes for GA status here: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The present site of Glasgow has been used since prehistoric times for settlement due to it being the forded point of the River Clyde furthest downstream, which also provided a natural area for salmon fishing - this is a little ungainly. Consider splitting into two sentences or rewriting. Commas are ok but be wary of too many.


 * However by the 1960s, a lack of investment and innovation led to growing overseas competition in countries like... - I know this may be tricky but this sounds really vague. What/how does the innovation refer to?


 * The city experienced mixed fortunes during 20th century - try "The city's fortunes were mixed during the 20th century"


 * Glasgow entered a long running period of relative economic malaise, - malaise refers to sickness, though I agree it is becoming more generalised in usage. I think "decline" or somesuch term would be more appropriate.


 * ...and poor health for the city's inhabitants. - ?? - I think this is controversial and needs some clarification and referencing (though I agree may be true :) )


 * There were active attempts at regeneration of the city,.. - would be better to clarify which bodies were trying to regenerate the city here.


 * In the Climate section you could combine the last 3 stubby paras. The first sentence also reads oddly.


 * the urban conurbation around the city. - erm, 'urban' redundant here?

In Economy section:

thriving better?
 * Last 2 sentences stick out a bit and could be incorporated into preceding paras somewhere.


 * These housing estates, known as "schemes", are widely regarded as unsuccessful: many, - should be semicolon not colon here.

Over time some have become as bad as the slum areas that they replaced, though at the time of construction they were largely welcomed.'' - problematic - magnets could be replaced by more formal word, and 'bad' should be replaced my a more exact adjective - crime-ridden or whatever you want to get across.


 * The main shopping centres are Buchanan Galleries and the St. Enoch Centre, as well as Princes Square and the Italian Centre, with more specialised and designer labels. - are all 4 main, or just the first 2 and the 2nd 2 more specialised - needs to be rephrased to highlight this.


 * ..further strengthening Glasgow's already impressive retail portfolio,... - eeeww, sounds like advertorial....

Maybe 'gay and lesbian' is better. Actually the paragraph could be written in a wee bit more formal tone.

In The West End - fix cite tags.


 * operators but SPT part-funds some services. - 'though' better here.

Overall the prose is OK and this should pass GA readily as the stuff above is straightofrward. Good work so far. WRT working towards FAC, the prose needs some more polishing - need to watch repetition of 'Glasgow' and look to reduce this without introducing ambiguity. There are alot of stubby paras in the last few sections that aren't deal-breakers for GA but would be for FA. Good luck. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am the one who nominated the article for GA but I did not write the article. I tried to fix some of the issues you pointed out even though my English is not very good. If everything is OK can you please pass this. Otherwise strike the issues that I fixed and find the people who wrote the article. Tell them to fix the other issues. --Kaypoh (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm..yeah. If this were FAC I'd jump in and do it myself btu I can't really do that here. Plus I can't see myself prioritizing the cite tags. I can leave a note for the main contributers. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you cannot jump in and do it yourself. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, according to the rules I can't then pass it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a rule that if you place the nomination on hold and then fix the issues you can't pass the article? I think the "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it" only means contributions you made before reviewing the article, not after. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no rule about fixing issues in an article you are reviewing, I've done it to all the GAs I've passed and its been done by the reviewer in plenty of GAs I've been involved in.

I've found another issue- the references are badly formatted. I'l fix them tomorrow, unless someone wishes to go first and save me the trouble. Lurker (said · done) 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the whole statement about the thriving economy. It is POV, and the same site used as a source for this says Edinburgh has the strongest economy of any UK city outside London. Lurker  (said · done) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My hands are tied - I didn't feel so good about the economy bit. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

GA passed
OK, in summary I think whatever minor bits and pieces are not dealbreakers for GA status. This is shaping up rather nicely for a crack at FA at some stage. For this it needs:


 * referencing - estimate another 80 odd at least.
 * fixing stubby listy paras into nicer rounded paragraphs in latter part of article.
 * more copyediting

Good luck whoever takes it on. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)