Talk:York Park/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and ~~strike it out~~ --

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

Y No obvious gaps --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Y Looks OK at the top level. I may have comments on the order of passages within sections. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need to sort out where details of the development plan go, see below. -Philcha (talk)
I've just realised the main text does not say up-front what the ground's main functions are and where it is. I suggesting making "Events" the first main section and incorporating the "transport" section and other location info there. I'd start with the functions, as that's what will get attention, and then deal wiht location etc. in the latter part fo the section. Sorry for not spotting this earlier, perhaps it's only become apparent as a result of other restructuring and / or I got too involved in checking that everything was supported by good sources. --Philcha (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it I actually don't think putting the Transport section into the events one makes much sense, an would probably disrupt the flow of the article. Just my opinion though. Wizardman 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

When you've dealt with the referencing issues, please recheck the prose carefully. It might be best to get a friend to check for you, as I know I find it easier to spot others' mistakes than my own :-/ --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In several places commas are misplaced or should simply be removed. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some awkward phrasing. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few typos. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 04:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

The first section, "History", has several statements that are not supported. Please:
- provide additional sources then remove statements that remain unsupported. --Philcha (talk)
- do the same for the rest of the article. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a real problem with referencing in the History section because a detailed article on Aurora Stadium had to be removed as an unreliable source, therefore that's the reason why some sentences aren't referenced properly and I'm struggling to find any others, so it's looking like some sentences have to be removed. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 04:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We both know where the problems are, so I would not rush to remove text yet. At your Talk page I suggested you ask librarians, and mentioned a web page that listed other organisations that might be able to help in identifying sources. You've been quick to respond so far, so I'm confident you'll keep at it and I'm in no hurry to set deadlines at present. --Philcha (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found as much as I could and removed outsourced material. It's hard because the York Park area wasn't much before the late 90's. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

Some statements early in the first para appear not to be supported by the copy of the cited Examiner article (Sep 3 2006) at /Talk:York_Park#The_Examiner_article:
- Done "becoming the Launceston Showgrounds in 1873" --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent find! --Philcha (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "Throughout the 1880s, the area became a public recreational park" --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "In 1919, work began to convert the park to a multi-purpose sports field" --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "with turnstiles, changerooms, a wooden grandstand and a cycling track that surrounded the perimeter fence until a new velodrome was constructed a few years later" --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
partly removed Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "The Northern Stand was completed four years later and still stands today." --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
removed Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "Since 1923, the ground has hosted first-class Australian rules football. Other sports played in the park precinct since its establishment include cricket, tennis, bowling, cycling and foot-racing" --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Re "York Park was the venue, where a Tasmanian team defeated a Victorian team for the first time, in 1960":
- Done comma after "venue" wrong, pl remove it. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I know the cited reports say "a Victorian team", but outside Oz / Tassie "Victorian" refers to a historical period. Please rephrase. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Re the 1960 game against a Victoria team, the sources support "The match was played in front of a ~~long standing record~~ crowd of approximately 15,000" but not "long standing record". --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Re "Until 1998, York Park remained a suburban sports ground, where, according to ground manager Robert Groenewegen, supporters were able to "park [their] car next to the boundary fence":
- Done The source says development started in 1999. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Excess comma after "ground". I could perhaps make a strictly grammatical case for allowing it, but "..., where, ..." is very awkward. Please rephrase. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done The direct quote is awkward and I can't find a better way to phrase it. I suggest indirect speech. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Nice restructure of sentence. --Philcha (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done The source does not support "Before the 1998 federal election, Bass member of parliament (MP) Warwick Smith from the ruling Liberal government made a re-election promise to fund the re-development of York Park. Although Smith lost his seat, the promise was upheld by his party, which won the election." --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info in "York Park story" http://www.aurorastadiumlaunceston.com.au/content/view/19/34/ Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done This section and "Structure and facilities" almost completely duplicate the development plan. I appreciate it's difficult because you're trying to hit a moving target. Can you think of any better options than one of the following? --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Abandon trying to get the article to GA until the situation stabilises. This would make the dev plan entirely history, but I'd understand if you were reluctant to do this, and there's no guarantee that there will be a period of stasis in the near future. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Create a section "Development plan 1998 to ...." so that the "History" section becomes more stable. You'd still have to update "Structures and facilities" when sections are taken out of use for re-development and when new facilities are opened. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Put all of the development plan material in the "History" section and update this and "Structures and facilities" to keep up with events. --Philcha (talk)
I doubt abandoning is the way to go as this is Tasmania and it could take 10 years before anything is done. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)}

Review paused

I think there's little point in my walking through further sections until the issues raised above are resolved. Please leave messages here to discuss things or when you think you've fixed the issues. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Development plan 1998 to 2009

Done At the end of para, after "five television standard light towers and a new watering and drainage system":
- It's not clear that Web page Aurora Stadium is a WP:RS - it could be a betting site or simply a WP:SPS. Do you actually need it to support any part of the preceding text? If not, I'd drop it in order to avoid hassle later from zealot. --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's needed anymore, although this ref is used on nearly every sports ground art in Aus. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've broken a ref after "as well as corporate facilities". An awful lot of getting an article to GA is checking what you've just done - or are abou to do. If you're going to remove a cite / citation template and the ref has a name, check the whole article for the same name, i.e. edit the whole thing rather than section. wikEd makes short work of this, see note at User:Philcha#Useful_stuff.

Yes, this kind of shit happens to me too, 2-3 times per GA I produce. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still there, If it is, I'm a bit confused (the weather has got to me) and could you possible fix it? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DoneYou now have a ref for ""five television standard light towers" but not for "new watering and drainage system". You need to treat a every leelment of a list like this as effectively a separate statement which requires its own verification. --Philcha (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this ref covers this? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 21:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done the map duplicates the info in the image. I'd drop it. --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  It's still there - did you delete the wrong ref? --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  OK now. --Philcha (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done In the 2nd para (list of stadiums) is from the same site of uncertain status. As afar as I can see, the only info it gives is the spectator capacity, and you don't use that here. Do you need this ref? --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I don't see how the cited sources support "(the ground became known as Aurora Stadium) after the signing of a six-year naming-rights sponsorship deal with Aurora Energy". --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our friend Austadiums has a news art on it here I can't find much else. The Mercury had an article but that link died and so did an AFL site article but that also passed away. I've tried the ABC but that doesn't come up with anything. There is an article from Aurora Energy I found in google (from the preview) but this doesn't load *sigh*. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find the URLs of the dead pages you may be able to resurrect them - see User:Philcha#Links_that_have_died. For example if they were once used in this article, go back through its history. --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cited local govt page says nothing about any sponsorship - it it used to, look for old version in Internet Archive. --Philcha (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done You need soething that says what used to be known as York Park is now called Aurora Stadium. --Philcha (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref has come back! Past few days. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done It's also unclear how this is relevant to the Dev Plan. If you can supply a ref, it might be better in history, along with its other name changes. --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done The Yahoo ref says the fire reduced capacity from 20,000 to 19,000. For a sports fan that may be as relevant as the $ value of the damage. --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was just for the single match against Adelaide. Since then there has been a crowd of 1,929. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? 1,929? --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or that! ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Grandstand fire 'deliberately lit' says, "causing between $300,000 and $500,000 damage." --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Re "Ground manager Groenewegen has suggested that the capacity could be increased to around 24,000 by replacing the Northern Stand, at an estimated cost of $10 million", the source is title "No takers ..." and that was a year ago. What's the current status? --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently removed. --Philcha (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done "In October 2008, an alternate proposal for a $5.5 million grandstand—which would also include 2,125 undercover seats, more corporate suites and improved change room facilities—was made public" appear not to be suported - unless it's in the the Examiner article; if so, please move the ref to the end of this sentence. --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, original plan seems to have got lost in Bass Strait and info already in next paragraph. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 13:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most reviewers are non-Tassie, so you should w-link Bass Strait or they'll miss the point :-)
Done The same sentence also appears to duplicate content in the next para - "Stage one will cost $5.5 million and includes relocating the Northern Stand's heritage roof, to be incorporated into part of the redevelopment of facilities at Invermay Park." --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done The 4th para ("The Launceston City Council has lodged a two-stage development application ...") partially repeats the 3rd para's content about the fire damage. --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Large chunks of ""The Launceston City Council has lodged ... publicly viewable until 9 January 2009" are not supported by the immediately following ref, Aurora Stadium and Invermay Park Northern Stand Redevelopment, which is the 1st ref in the para. --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done In 2nd para, you should delete "naming-rights". The phrase is in an Austadiums page. OK, it's not used as a source, but some people are getting all worked up about WP:PLAGIARISM, and you don't really need the phrase in a sentence that says, "the ground became known as Aurora Stadium ... sponsorship deal with Aurora Energy". --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --Philcha (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structures and facilities

Done In "the Aurora Function Centre that houses coaches boxes" do you mean "coaches' boxes"? --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done It seems that none of the 3 refs (all Aurora) following "The Function Centre holds many of North Launceston's premiership trophies and memorabilia" supports that sentence. Have I missed something? --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done "The heritage listed Northern Stand, next to Function Centre, was partly destroyed by a deliberately lit fire during the early hours of 30 March 2008":
- Is repeated again. --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- {done}} "next to the Function Centre"? --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Re "Ground re-development plans suggest that the undamaged section of the roof could be re-located to the neighbouring Inveresk Park to accommodate a new grandstand", all the refs for this suggest the whole stand will be moved. --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have removed this. Is any part of the damaged stand being moved? --Philcha (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says in history; "The project is also set to include relocating the Northern Stand's heritage roof into part of the redevelopment of facilities at Invermay Park" Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done The map supports the location of Railway Workers Hill but not "named after the North Launceston Football Club who were originally named the Railway Football Club". --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Bombers supports "who were originally named the Railway Football Club" but not "(Railway Workers Hill) named after the North Launceston Football Club". --Philcha (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "possibly" does not resolve the problem - a citation is needed! --Philcha (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to drop the claim. Even though it's correct I couldn't find a source anywhere. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Section "Development plan 1998 to 2009" has already covered lights, watering and drainage. --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed wording. Is that alright? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 14:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame

Done Why does these need a separate sub-section, rather than include in "Structures and facilities"? --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create this section, so i didn't see the need to remove it. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article lifts almost verbatim the source's "The Tasmanian Community Fund has provided a $50,000 grant to assist AFL Tasmania and the Launceston City Council to establish a permanent Tasmanian Football Hall of Fame facility at Aurora Stadium" - please rephrase. --Philcha (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the grammar. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited. You need to be more creative when rephrasing, not just substitute individual words. --Philcha (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done} "positioned as the "true home of Tasmanian football"" is a straight lift from the source, please rephrase. --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 14:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"it's" - no contractions, please. --Philcha (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing of "Tasmania's home for AFL" is poor. I suggest "is regarded as the home of Australian Rules Football in Tasmania" - "the home of ..." is a common phrase so using it is not WP:PLAGIARISM. -Philcha (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done "Since 2000, the stadium is complete with ..." is not good English - looks translated from German. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The item about lights and drainage appears here and above. Why? And it's no better supported here. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think all issues have been resolved. Shame you won't be able to continue as you've done a fantastic job so far. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links validity check

The link checker report shows 2 issues:

Done Launceston shows 404 "not found" error. If you can't find another source, see if the Internet Archive has a backup copy - see instructions at [[1]]. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aurora Stadium plan expected by Christmas has moved to another domain. I'd change it to the URL of the page actually displayed, in case the old one is scheduled for termination. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I removed the Crusty source since that note was referenced twice already. Second link fixed. Wizardman 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check for disambiguation and other dubious wikilinks

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) shortcut for wiki.riteme.site with redirected and disambig page options selected --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Can't check this at present, someone's messed up the tool. Will try tomorrow. --Philcha (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are still all good, that link isn't working for me either when I tried before reading this. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Examiner is still a DAB link. --Philcha (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Aaroncrick (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py is having a bad day now. It still says 1 dAB link, but I scanned the markup and found none. --Philcha (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images

Y Appropriate images, helpful captions, no copyright issues. --Philcha (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Y 1 user-created image - it states what it's based on, so no problem with WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other uses

Almost missed this in all the restructuring.

- Done Wouldn't call a Billy Graham event a "performance". The usual phrase is revival meeting, and I might go for "... a Billy Graham religious revival meeting ..." for the benefit of non-Anglo-Saxon readers. --Philcha (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record crowds

Done Another rousing performance by the Rev Billy!? Pl rephrase. --Philcha (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few copyedits

I've made a few minor changes in the main text - are you happy with them? --Philcha (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very good, and thanks to Wizardman aswell. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Done Please remove "naming-rights", which has been removed from main text. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Wizardman 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I don't think the lead needs to list all the non-sport events. I'd say something like "... has hosted pop concerts and other entertainments, and a mass religious meeting." This also has the advantage of not going out of date as further events are held. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Aaroncrick (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Wouldn't call a Billy Graham event a "performance". The usual phrase is revival meeting, and I might go for "... a Billy Graham religious revival meeting ..." for the benefit of non-Anglo-Saxon readers. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Wizardman 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done The structure of the 2nd & 3rd paras looks odd. I'd be inclined to have as separate paras: (a) The history; (b) Aussie football activities; (c) Other activities. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Aaroncrick (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

I'm very pleased to say that this article meets or exceeds the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images.

Aaroncrick, many thanks fr the determiation you showed in tracking down those elusive refs. Wizardman, thanks for polishing up the rough edges.

If you've got 2 or more articles to GA status, please consider reviewing some other GA candidate articles. You'll find a list of candidate articles at WP:GAN, grouped by subject area. In addition to the instructions there and the Good Article criteria, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. If at any stage in a review you are uncertain about how to handle something, ask at WT:GAN, where experienced reviewers will be happy to help. --Philcha (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.