Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portman Road

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:02, 29 January 2008.

Portman Road edit

Check external links

Well another Ipswich Town article to hopefully complement the other FA's and FL's. I based the structure of the article and the general tone and content on an existing featured article, namely Priestfield Stadium and had a productive peer review. I humbly submit the article to the scrutiny of the community and will, as I hope I always do, respond quickly and constructively to each and every comment you may wish to make. Thanks in advance for your time and effort in reviewing the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Peanut4
  • Comment. Excellent article, but just a couple of comments before I offer probable support.
    • The lead feels to be on the short side. It particularly doesn't mention anything of the origins and early history of the stadium.
      • Cool, I'll check WP:LEAD vs the length of the article and expand, even if it's just to bolster the current paragraphs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reckon there's the right amount of paragraphs. Probably just one or else two sentences more per par. Maybe bolster the history with the earlier stuff, and maybe one line about the records would be my suggestion, but I'm sure you know the topic far more than me to decide what to add. Peanut4 (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've expanded the lead by three or four sentences, I think it's improved, hopefully you do to! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's superb. It flows absolutely beautifully. Excellent work. Peanut4 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One sentence seems a bit complicated. I've had to read it three times to fully digest. Work began on the first bank of terracing at the north end of the pitch and in the following year, on the back of winning the Southern League, a similar terrace was built at the southern "Churchmans" end and 650 tip-up seats, bought from Arsenal, were installed. I think the final and clause is one too many.
      • I'm sure you're right. I'll re-work in first thing tomorrow. I think I've flowed one too many sentences there...! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My first thought was to add the first part of the sentence to the previous one. But as above, I'm sure you're in a far better position to decide how to change it. Peanut4 (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cool, I've think I've managed to improve this section, logically and grammatically - the cricket team were kicked out so the terrace was built. Then the following year bit comes in a new sentence. See what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've made a slight change. Hope it's alright. Peanut4 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also changed Directors Box to directors' box. I'm very confident about the apostrophe but slightly less so about the caps. Peanut4 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh-huh, I looked at that earlier and googled both versions with relatively common results. I'm not fussed either way so thanks for your edit, I think it's probably best. I took the original capitalisation & punctuation from the official ITFC website (but that doesn't mean it's grammatically correct!)... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provisionally on the basis of one question. I've made some amendments from the refs, but have one query regarding the building of the first stand in 1905. This ref which is used elsewhere but not for that sentence says it was 1906. Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Great work. Peanut4 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I guess I mistyped. Not sure where '05 came from so I've reverted to 1906 which is per source. Eagle eyes award to Peanut4. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my issues dealt with at PR. Another excellent article off TRM's production line of FAs. Just a shame it's about such a distasteful subject. Still, happy to support (though you might push me if you ever develop John Wark. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • {{Hidden|titlestyle = background-color: #98285C; color:white;|contentstyle = border:1px;|header=Resolved stuff from Woody|content=

    • Comment I have added in some commas in the minorest(?!) of minor copyedits. Other issues:
    • Safety barriers were removed from the North Stand in 1989 following the Hillsborough disaster and following the recommendations of the Taylor Report, the terraces in both the North and South stands were also converted to all-seating, creating the first complete all-seater stadium in the top flight of English football with a spectator capacity of 22,600. This sentence is a bit long, restructure?
      • Yep, thanks for noticing. I'll restructure and get back to you... [[User:The Rambling Man|accessdate=</nowiki>. Also, dates using the standard British format: 15 March 2001, shouldn't have commas in the middle: (15 March, 2001)
      • Okay, I think since ISO date format sucks I'll go through and do the accessyear and accessdate thing. Thanks for noticing, I've got the preferences set so I wouldn't have seen there was a problem! I'll get on with it shortly and get back to you. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed my mind and went for ISO (less work!) - hopefully it should all look standardised to you Woody! Cheers again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • #34 and #35 aren't wikilinked. Other than that, perfect. Woody (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other than that, all looks good. Woody (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well there's nothing wrong with the use of the template so I guess because the dates are quite old (1920s and 1950s) there's a chance the template doesn't convert them properly... What do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed them. The date field isn't mandatory so I'll live without it for those three!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't see your comment here. I added them in and wikilinked them. All looks good now. Woody (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    }}

    • Support My comments have been addressed. Looks good, (and shows me Villa Park needs a bit more work). Woody (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The only mistake I found I corrected, so it passes for me, an excelent article well done NapHit (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from Jameboy
    • Comment
    • Firstly, I've made a few minor edits in the last couple of hours, which I hope you're OK with.
    • Looking back, the bit I added about the floods disrupts that paragraph, which is concerned with ground improvements. I initially put it there to fit the timeline but I now think it should be moved somewhere else, though exactly where I'm not too sure. Perhaps it could be changed to "twice in the 1950s" and moved to the start of the paragraph? The lack of any further info on this makes it hard to link into something else.
      • Yeah, it doesn't flow naturally with anything else and, in my opinion, raises more questions than it answers, like, how long was the ground flooded for? what did they do about it? where did they play in the meantime? I'd suggest that if we can't answer these then perhaps we remove the flood sentence altogether? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem if you want to remove it (take care though as that reference is used elsewhere). I'd be interested to find out more about the floods, but it probably needs additional sources in order to add it to the article in any meaningful way. --Jameboy (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've commented it out and maintained the reference. If we can possibly find more out about this then we should cite more and expand but for the time being I'd feel happier removing it... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do the co-ordinates need to appear both in the infobox and at the top of the page?
    • Seems OK to me, just wanted to check it wasn't an oversight. --Jameboy (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The length of this sentence bothers me. Could possibly be sorted out with commas or maybe rephrased: "The complete renovation of the South Stand into a two-tier stand with an additional 4,000 seats and the subsequent demolition and reconstruction of a two-tier North Stand adding another 4,000 seats brought the total capacity of the ground to more than 30,000" Jameboy (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Just one thing - should we try to get at least one non-footy person to look at each football FAC, just to give a different perspective? Just a thought. --Jameboy (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I always think at least one other person should be involved, just to make sure we are not too "in-universe". Conversely I think that local projects are best equipped at stating that it meets the comprehensiveness standard. Woody (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd be happy for anyone to review the article against FAC standards, but people do seem to stick with their own topics... But here's an open invitation not non-WP:FOOTY reviewers .. review away! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Has come along nicely since the PR started, concerns raised there have all been dealt with. One minor point: a name which became synonymous with the stand which would be located there until the early 21st century - Mixing of tenses makes this difficult to parse. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for your edits and your support. I've tried to match the tenses, it still feels a touch clumsy, feel free to rejig it! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Added a couple of snippets, but aside from that, it's about as comprehensive as could be. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Portman_Road&oldid=1138469261"