Talk:Broadhurst Park/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 15:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been waiting for a review far too long, so I'll take a look at it. Wizardman 15:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

I don't see a need for the two fair use images, especially since the park has now been built and is now open. If you can provide a stronger claim then maybe one would be okay. Done I have removed the image of the current ground as a free image could be taken instead. I have kept the Ten Acres Lane photo as this stadium was never built and so can only be illustrated with the non-free image per fair use. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Double check that F.C. United is consistent throughout, as opposed to FC United. I caught one and fixed it myself, but there might've been some i missed. Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the history section, perhaps make it a little clearer that we're talking about the history of the grounds themselves, rather than the stadium. Starting off with WWI-era history on something that broke ground in 2013 confused me at first. Done Renamed section and added opening sentence. If any more needs doing for this, let me know. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link Section 106 to the appropriate act, so those unfamiliar (me) can understand what it is. Done linked to Town and Country Planning Act 1990#Part III, Control Over Development Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Broadhurst Park also has a 3G pitch and two grass pitches adjacent to it, as training and community facilities" reword to "..as well as training and..." Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing too major to fix. I'll put the article on hold and will pass when the issues are fixed. Wizardman 17:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the swift review. I have attempted to rectify all the issues. Hope you have a Happy New Year :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, thanks. The copyedits after yours helped as well with a couple sentences that, while I didn't note them, were a bit iffy. As such I'll pass the article. Wizardman 22:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]