• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to see how far this article could be taken as I look to get York City F.C. related articles to WP:FT status. Sources on it are limited, so even GA is looking tough. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Matty, that's good work considering how little I expect there is out there on the topic. Just a few minor points:

• Don't think the first sentence needs that comma in the middle, although personally I prefer the "F.C." to have dots, especially given that that's how the club's own article is titled (also the dots are used in the infobox within this article)
  •  Done Removed comma and added dots. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "the highest attendance at the ground" not "the ground's highest attendance"
  •  Done Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "eight acres of land" is plural therefore it should be "were purchased", not "was"
  •  Done Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "A major problem of the ground was its relative inaccessibility" is a bit garbled, maybe try "a major problem for the club was the ground's relatively inaccessible location"
  •  Done Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "in a one-mile radius of Bootham Crescent" - I think "within" is a more appropriate word than "in" here
  •  Done Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "and there was however some opposition to the move" - should be "although there was some oppostion to the move"
  •  Done Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "An Amateur international" - no reason for capital letter on "amateur"
  •  Done Uncapitalised. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• From the instructions: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics" APR _t 02:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You said in the GA review that you have the ground co-ordinates, so why not add them into the article?
  • I have the link to it, but have idea on how to convert this to coordinates. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used this geocoding site to add it. I just did it by eye, which on maximum zoom is more than good enough I reckon (within a metre or so?). I think the co-ordinates within the Google URL you supplied could be used for a more scientific method, but I haven't looked into that too deeply as yet. --Jameboy (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't mention where the road called Fulfordgate fits in. Did it pre-date the ground or was it built afterwards?
  • The source doesn't say, so I'm unsure... Mattythewhite (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What was built on the site after the ground's demolition?
  • Housing, by looking at Google Maps, and I've reworded this to more closely fit what the source reads. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cheers --Jameboy (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found OS maps from 1931 and 1936 that answer my 2nd and 3rd points. Fulfordgate (the road) and Eastward Avenue replaced the ground after its demolition. Hope you like the image I added. --Jameboy (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic, thanks! Mattythewhite (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]