Talk:Partick Thistle F.C./GA2

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

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)