I'm thinking of putting this up for GA (don't think there's enough content/potential content for a FA, personally, although feel free to say if you disagree) but was wondering if there's anything that needs addressing first.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey Chris, another nice piece of work, some comments...

• Don't wikilink Kent twice in the first paragraph of the lead.
  •  Done
• "...redevelopment work was still at a very early stage, and many of the ground's facilities are still of a temporary nature" - tense change.
  •  Done - changed "was" to "is", as the point I was trying to make is that the ground has still hardly been developed at all. I was there for a match last season and it's currently pretty much a step 7 ground plus a couple of pre-fab stands that look like they were borrowed from the local golf course.......
• "...the club has ambitious plans..." - sounds a bit POV to me. One man's ambition is another's daily routine... (just ask Abramovich...)
  •  Done - changed "ambitious" to "extensive"
• (Not a specific comment but why not upload the stadium photo (and any others) to Wikimedia Commons?)
  • hadn't thought of it but will look into it, I'm not very familiar with Commons
• "1986–?" for Thanet Vikings probably needs sorting out, as should the dimensions. On that point, you have "as part of the agreement the Hartsdown pitch was altered to exactly match the size of that at Highbury." - does that help?!
  • fixed the dates for the American football thingy based on re-reading a source which I think says they only played there for one year. Try as I might I can't find a source for the current pitch size. Point taken about Highbury, but I'd wager the Hartsdown pitch is no longer the exact same size as it was in 1934.....
• "Margate's home" - Margate F.C.'s home surely?
  •  Done
• "...was soon added, soon to be followed..." - two soon!
  •  Done
• "covered accommodation" - is accommodation the right phrase? Perhaps it is...
  • I also think it sounds a bit naff, but I can't think of a better word. I've changed it to "spectator accommodation" which hopefully doesn't make it sounds quite so much like there's a B & B behind one goal :-)
• "...prestigious friendly match..." explain why it was prestigious.
  • just a reference to the fact that it was against West Ham really, but as I can't really quantify that I've removed it
• "now ramshackle North Stand" - why?
  •  Done reworded. I remember going there in the 1980s and the North Stand was barely standing, but I've replaced the rather vague word "ramshackle" with a sourced reference to the fact that it had actually been condemned
• "...dragged on for three years, mired in issues..." a little POV.
  •  Done
• You link Conference and Conference National to Conference National which may be a little confusing to the uninitiated.
  •  Done - changed the first one to Football Conference, Conference National was probably inappropriate there anyway, as at the time the term did not exist and the Conference was just a single division
• "As the redevelopment work is still ongoing at Hartsdown Park, the stadium's current facilities are limited." - not sure about this. Old Trafford has been redeveloped (not on such a scale) but it's had plenty of work done and kept its facilities. Do you get what I mean? I'm not sure there's a logical connection here necessarily.
  • reworded - what do you think? I've made it clearer that it wasn't just a cosmetic redevelopment - all bar one terrace was in fact razed to the ground and only the bare minimum rebuilding work has as yet been done....
• Space before . and [22].
  •  Done - removed the space before ref 22, was that the only one?
• Use {{convert}} for 0.7 miles (so it goes to metres as well).
  •  Done

I think you're probably right, GA definitely, not sure if it could expand enough for FA. Hope the comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers as ever for your spot-on comments!!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 19:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Take it GA now. You'll be waiting for a while (unless you want me to review it), but it'll def make GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've nominated it for GA. If you want to review it that would be cool, but please don't feel under pressure to ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]