Wikipedia:Peer review/Giffnock/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was promoted to GA status with a few changes after a thorough GA review by Pyrotec. I've considered making the push for FA but I appreciate content writing isn't one of my stongest attributes. A review with relation to suitability for FA candidancy and any work recommended would be of great help. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 10:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)