Talk:Liverpool F.C./GA1

GA Reassessment

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

I will be doing the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project.

Link [17] in the references is dead and needs to be repaired. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be between 3 and 4 paragraphs depending on the size of the article. This lead is 5 small paragraphs. I recommend combining some of the information and trimming it down a bit. The article needs hard dashes (–) per WP:DASH. I added them to the History section, please check the rest of the article. The writing is good and the article is well-referenced. The article remains current. The article passes the GA Criteria, please check these concerns but they are minimal and easily addressed. H1nkles (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is the debate still hot if it is we need to get this resolved NOW —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRC4Life (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is no debate, my job was to reassess the article given new GA Criteria, and I feel that it is still current with the GA Criteria so I kept it at GA. No further debate on my end. H1nkles (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead seems to have grown to 10 paragraphs. It needs some serious editing. As one small example, the fact that the team used to play in red and white really doesn't belong there. Anyone want to have a go? phreakydancin (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]