This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of event facilities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Gonna change this to an A.C in line with the wikipedia article about the team.Also according to the 'Cathkin Park' article the ground was renamed 'New Cathkin Park' so I'll fix that for now, coolio? *killerpsychobunny* 03:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
"remarkable" is a word to avoid in an encyclopedia.
Find a more objective term than "played several great games"
Similarly "a tremendous winning goal"
Okay, I have tried to remove some of those superlatives. I have replaced the Zidane adjective with a more technical description of his goal and a reference. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The see also under 'structure and facilities' is rather confusing. It would be better to just incorporate a brief summary and and the link in the prose.
The rugby section needs to be copy-edited somewhat. The term "It was over 90 years until" should be rephrased to mention the next year (and perhaps date), and it is also confusing if the Romania game was part of the World Cup or not.
Most of the information in the 'records' section is mentioned elsewhere in the article, so I would suggest just dropping the section, and incorporating the few stray sentences (QP attendance etc) elsewhere.
I was following the example of (FA) Old Trafford, which has a separate records section that goes into a bit more detail about the fluctuations of Manchester United's attendances through time. I don't think this applies to Hampden because Queen's Park do not play on a high level and the number of big events at Hampden are therefore smaller (just some of the Scotland games and cup finals), but I think it is still necessary as a summary. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The transport section should be compressed to a single paragraph
Overall an interesting and well-written article. Most of the above issues are minor, and after they are seen to, the article should pass. Arsenikk(talk) 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Most of the article looks good, but I'm concerned about the second paragraph in the lead. My concern is the section "Hampden was greatly expanded during the early 20th century. It became the largest stadium in the world and several attendance records were set. Its capacity has been greatly reduced since then," which although isn't incorrect in any way, is very vague. Instead of saying "early 20th century" (which could be anything form 1905 to 1940), use specific years, even if it is a range of years. Similarly, state the maximum record at the stadium. Instead of saying "greatly reduced", state the current capacity. Arsenikk(talk) 18:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
A am passing the article. Although I must just have missed it on my watchlist, it would have been faster if you had also posted on the review page that it was done. The article is well written and interesting; hope there are more of this quality coming soon :) Arsenikk(talk) 22:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The stadium is listed as a UEFA Category Four arena; which seems to me to be almost certain, given the matches it holds. However, some other articles, notably that of Queens Park describe it as being Category Three. Have changed the Queens Park article to say Category Four, but a reliable reference to prove this is so would be useful. I've not managed to locate one however. Grunners (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The article actually says: " Englishman John Hampden, who fought in the English Civil War for Cromwell's Parliamentarians." Actually he died in 1643, well before Cromwell, his cousin, achieved real prominence, let alone leadership, in the parliamentary cause, while Hampden was in a sense its leader. So the opposite is more true: Cromwell was at first a minor commander among Hampden's Parliamentarians. Sjwells53 (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have changed the wording accordingly. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)