Talk:Hartsdown Park

GA review
Overall, I can't fault it against the GA criteria so I'll promote to GA now. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is well written. In this respect:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct
 * ✅ Absolutely. The peer review picked up any problems I could find
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * ✅ Can't find any faults.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
 * (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
 * ✅ Well referenced, decent variety of reliable sources in the reference section.
 * (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;
 * ✅ Good referencing, nothing contentious unreferenced.
 * (c) contains no original research.
 * ✅ No WP:OR here sir.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
 * (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;
 * ✅ Yes, of course.
 * (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
 * ✅ Yes.
 * 1) It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * 2) It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
 * ✅ Won't change much at all, no edit wars or anything else, it's flying below the radar I think.
 * 1) It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. In this respect:
 * (a) all images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for any non-free content; and
 * ✅ Yes.
 * (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * ✅ Yes.
 * ✅ Yes.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hartsdown Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928002641/http://www.chelmsfordcityfc.com/margate_preview_h_140407.htm to http://www.chelmsfordcityfc.com/margate_preview_h_140407.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090723090425/http://www.margatefchistory.co.uk/clubhistory.htm to http://www.margatefchistory.co.uk/clubhistory.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008135401/http://www.gardenhistory.org.uk/ukpg/place.asp?PlaceID=HARTSDOW to http://www.gardenhistory.org.uk/ukpg/place.asp?PlaceID=HARTSDOW
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080324104715/http://www.margatefchistory.co.uk/hartsdownpics.htm to http://www.margatefchistory.co.uk/hartsdownpics.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080324104700/http://www.margatefchistory.co.uk/hartsdown03.htm to http://www.margatefchistory.co.uk/hartsdown03.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070731045910/http://www.southendunited-mad.co.uk/news/loadfeat.asp?cid=EDW6 to http://www.southendunited-mad.co.uk/news/loadfeat.asp?cid=EDW6&id=54178
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216164705/http://www.margatefchistory.co.uk/teamrecords.htm to http://www.margatefchistory.co.uk/teamrecords.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112210212/http://www.margate-fc.com/stadium/ to http://www.margate-fc.com/stadium/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)