Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carrow Road/archive1

< 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 by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2015 [1].

Carrow Road edit

Nominator(s): Dweller (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following the disappointment of this year's Football League Championship play-offs in which bitter and long-standing rivals Canaries and Tractor Boys faced off for a place at the final at Wembley, Dweller thought it would be a good idea to rub salt into the wounds by suggesting we get Norwich's home stadium, Carrow Road, up to FA quality in time to celebrate its 80th birthday. So we had a stab up getting it up to snuff, and humbly submit it to the community for scrutiny and criticism. We both appreciate any time and energy commentators spend on this nomination, thanks in advance and we'll both do our best to get to any actions as soon as we can. COYB/OTBC The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TRM. Just to be clear, the anniversary is Aug 31, and we're hoping for a Main Page appearance then, subject to reaching the required standard in time. --Dweller (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton edit

Resolved comments from Brianboulton
I would like to have had a chance to pre-review this, as I don't think it's quite up to FA standard at the moment, although there's no reason why it can't be ready for a 31 August TFA. I have read it through rather quickly, and have so far picked up a few issues:
  • General
  • In the History section, there are too many very short subsections. Bits like the "Thorpe corner" information don't need subsections to themelves. The effect is to destroy the flow of prose.
  • This should now be fixed, assuming you meant the section about the stands, rather than the history. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Stadium's name and initial construction history" section the use of the blockquote format in the sentence beginning "The original stadium was described as..." looks inappropriate. Blockquotes don't work for very short quotes – they simply break up the prose even more – and it's not clear in this case what the quote consists of – the whole line, or just the words in quotes?
  • There is a large amount of white space between the "Music" and "Rodeo" sections which is disfiguring. I'm not actually convincd that the rodeo information is wrth keeping, but if it is, it should be connected with the main text.
  • Fixed. Unencyclopedic. Hope the photo looks better now, too - there's still a smidgen of white. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing
  • The format of ref 16 is confusing – can you clarify/simplify
  • Ref 27 – Pitchcare.com: what makes this a reliable highy-quality source?
  • I know what you mean, but the claims supported by the source are extremely uncontentious and fall very much in line with WP:V's comment: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves ... They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." The information is about something pitchcare were involved in. I could cut <sorry about the pun> the subsection, but it'd be something of a shame. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 32 – R G Carter Construction: same query
  • Ref 42 – not properly formatted
  • There are several uncited statements:
  • "In the wake of the Ibrox stadium disaster in 1971, safety licences were required by clubs which resulted in the capacity being drastically reduced to around 20,000"
  • "The current stadium consists of four stands; the Barclay (the north-eastern stand), the Norwich and Peterborough Stand (the south-western stand), the Geoffrey Watling City Stand (the north-western stand) and the most recent addition, the Jarrold Stand (the south-eastern stand)"
  • Done. Got rid of directions as the source missed one of them and I didn't think it was essential anyway. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Floodlights are supported on both corners of The Barclay and the Norwich & Peterborough stands, which are the ends behind the goals"
  • This doesn't strike me as a massively reliable source, but maybe it does the trick, as per comments above re WP:V? --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The club has therefore periodically stated that it has plans to significantly increase the capacity of the stadium"
  • Hmm. Really it's a matter of what follows in the rest of the section, but I've cited two such instances. Hope that does the trick. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and look at the prose in more detail, a little later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, thanks. I'll crack on with that lot soon. --Dweller (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note

I am carrying out a detailed prose review. Rather than cluttering this page with detailed comments, I am leaving them on the article's talk. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Later

Following the talk page review and your responses, these are my final comments:

  • I don't think there is MOS justification for italicising Thorpe Corner
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purchase of the 20-year lease is mentioned twice in close proximity
    Ooh yes. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the number of unnecessary direct quotes has reduced, there are still several in the paragraph I'm reading. " "17 August most of the stands and terraces had been completed" – why is that quoted? Likewise " on 31 August Carrow Road football ground was opened for the Second Division match v West Ham United" and "the more vociferous of the home and away supporters".
    Splendid. Nuked. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the reduction in stadium capacity to around 20,000 after the Ibrox disaster. On the face of it this sounds a crippling blow, but I rather think that the club's average attendance, at league matches anyway, was probably below that figure. It would be useful to have a sentance summarising the impact, if any, of this reduction.
    We could get into OR here. I can find no published average attendance records, but http://www.stadiumguide.com/carrowroad/ shows a crowd of 43,984 in 1963. I'll try to take a look at Canary Citizens, which I think has attendances for every match, but I'll be careful with OR. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verbosity: "The South Stand was replaced in 2003 when a new 8,000 seat stand, subsequently renamed the Jarrold Stand, was built in its place". Try: "In 2003 the South Stand was replaced by the new, 8,000 seat Jarrold Stand." Same info in 14 words rather than 24.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eightieth anniversary: I recommend that you begin this section: "In anticipation of the ground's 80th anniversary on 31 August 2015, a rematch of the original fixture versus West Ham, was arranged for 28 July 2015" (the match will be over before this leaves FAC).
    I like that, because the clever use of tense means it's still valid now (ie the arranging was done in the past). Done --Dweller (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also reword the Section's final sentence thus or similar: "Fans could buy tickets for a celebratory dinner with the first-team squad, the menu provided by the club's joint majority shareholder, the celebrity chef Delia Smith". You need to get rid of the implied future tense
    It hasn't happened yet. Tweaked and done. --Dweller (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Stands section, why are the four stands presented in a different order from that in the introductory sentence?
    Done --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dubbed 'The Snakepit' by supporters" is not a worthy quote.
    correctamundo. Done. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor is "unusual in having not one, but three separate television gantries suspended beneath its largely perspex roof."
    Unusual, in having non-encyclopedic tendencies, so scrubbed. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor ""New York-style diner" – a straightforward description
    I have no idea what it means. Is a New York-style diner much different to a San Francisco one? Rephrased. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The club has therefore periodically stated that it has plans to significantly increase the capacity of the stadium." I'm looking again at this sentence, which I raised in my initial comments. Two split infinitives in the same short sentence, with "therefore periodically" especially awkward. My feeling is that this whole rather clunky sentence is redundant, since you go on immediately to discuss the expansions plans. I would zap it.
    I think I've helped address this now. --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stadium has also occasionally..." Delete "also" (not needed)
    Was done already by someone. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The John and Michael concerts..." This wording temporarily threw me. Who the hell are John and Michael, I thought. The two stars have never in my experience been referred to as "John" or "Michael", so please add the Elton and George, to avoid confusion.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one important outstanding issue. The original 20-year lease from Colmans ran out in 1955. We need at least a sentence or two explaining how the ownership of the ground has evolved since then. Was the lease merely extended, and if so for how long? Has the club acquired the freehold – if so, when? These are rather basic details that need to be included.
    Interesting. The sources are a little quiet on the matter, but I found one saying the freehold was purchased in 69/70: [2] Looks like an RS, but I have no page number. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you can use this source without access to more text. All I can see is an undated "While the club was negotiating to buy the freehold to Carrow Road", which is inconclusive. Someone needs to read the full text and find some page numbers – I think this could be done post-FAC, and accirdingly won't hold up my support. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have, and if you can deal with these remaining issues I'll be ready to support. But you really need to get some more eyes on the article, bearing in mind your TFA target date. There are editors around who are much more knowledgeable than me about sports stadiums, and it may be worth making them aware of this FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Comments from Cas Liber edit

Resolved comments from Cas Liber
Right, I made some tweaks, see if you're ok with them. Agree with Brian about dequoting and did some more. Left a couple that has some wittiness/tongue-in-cheek aspect to them.
  • Overall the paras are a bit smaller than I would have them but not grossly so, so not a deal-breaker per se.
    Thanks for these comments and the tweaks. I'll keep reviewing this particular one between now and shiny star time, to see if anything can be done. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pitch measurements should be in the prose somewhere, and also if there are any details over whether it is particularly big/small/narrow/wide compared with other league pitches.
    Really? It's in the infobox, but it's such a dull matter. I've not heard Carrow Road's pitch being referred to as particularly large/small/wide/narrow, so it's probably fairly humdrum, other, of course, for being sacred. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok then, if it's just average then that's not notable...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No local non-league clubs have ever used it? Just asking.....
    No idea. Never heard of it. It's a rural part of the country, so grounds are easier to come by, I suppose. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall looking ok....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ultimately its a tentative support from me as it is a fair read and I can't see anything left out nor any clangers prose-wise remaining. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 edit

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back and forth, as I suspect spending the whole weekend on Wikipedia won't make me particularly popular at home. To start with:
  • Thirteen references – nos. 28, 29, 37, 38, 39, 48, 54, 59, 63, 65, 67, 68 and 70 – lead either to the front page of the appropriate website, to an error page within the site, or are just dead.
    28, 29, 37, 38, 39 done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    48 not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no joy on this, perhaps some paper sources might testify to this, the original URL was simply the home news page of the newspaper, which wasn't helpful at all.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just got rid of it. It's so insignificant. And I think the sourcing problem may have originated earlier in the FAC process, when I hacked longer material on the same subject, so it could have been my fault, not TRM's. Thanks for spotting this. --Dweller (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    54, 59, 63, 65 done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    67 not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Managed to reference the result (via UEFA) but not the record attendance claim so have removed that until such a time an alternative can be found. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    68 and 70 done. Now to go back to 48 and 67... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Pitch section: the quotes aren't from the manaufacturer, they're from Norwich's groundsman.....
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the stand called Norwich and Peterborough or Norwich & Peterborough? usage is inconsistent
    It's &, so fixed but for the reference title which uses "and". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the City stand section: Directors Box and Press Area shouldn't be capitalised. And I'm uncomfortable with "the smallest of the four in terms of capacity, but includes the Directors' Box, Press Area, and various other hospitality suites" being such close paraphrasing of ref2, which isn't the cited source, but which reads "the smallest in terms of capacity, but comprises Directors' Box, media facilities, and various other hospitality suites".
    I have tweaked and referenced to ref 2, I imagine that ref 4 used ref 2 as its own source and closely paraphrased it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Jarrold stand section: "The stand is a cantilever, single-tiered, all-seated stand, that can hold up to 8,184 supporters" is far too close to the cited source, which reads "The new Jarrold Stand is a cantilever, single-tiered, all-seated stand, that can hold up to 8,000 supporters". And the 8,184 figure isn't mentioned in the cited source, nor is the capacity of the Aviva Community stand, nor are its facilities for disabled supporters.
    Fixed the first problem, a little reword and a revision of the capacity to 8,000 per cite. Will search for next bit now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Capacity and disabled supporters now both individually referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Struway. I am wholly responsible for those naughty refs, so I'll try to get some time tonight/tomorrow to at least fix those. As always, your comments are appreciated! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That single miscreant ref aside, I think I've addressed your initial comments. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done now. Thanks so much, Struway. I hope your family weren't too irritated. --Dweller (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest. Some of this might be unduly picky, or just down to my personal taste in prose style, so please feel free to ignore:

Infobox

Name and construction

  • Is Norfolk Record Office really the author of Ref13? and where it appears again, it shouldn't really be spelt Recored
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest bundling refs 15-19, to avoid such a long string of bracketed numbers interrupting the text
    Bundled. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref17 appears to be a self-published site: what makes it RS? And if it is, the ref itself could do with a bit of formatting: you have Jonathan Neville named as both author and publisher, with two different spellings, and no indication of what the website's called.
    Removed, not sure even how/why that was added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "while the original construction is long gone, the end retains the name of its benefactor", wikilinking "benefactor" to the Barclay End section of the article is a bit Easter egg
    Unlinked, no need for linked into the article sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could wikilink Inglis
    Linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eightieth anniversary

  • The first sentence is repeated almost word for word in the second
    Removed repetition. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now we're past 28 July, would it read better as "was played/was held/took place on" rather than "was arranged for"? either way, the year doesn't need repeating
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an actionable comment: While I realise the upcoming 80th anniversary is why you're at FAC now, and I'm not saying remove it, are we sure that in general an 80th anniversary is actually important enough to mention at all, let alone in such detail?
    Important enough for them to replay the original fixture I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich & Peterborough

  • "An extra 160 seats installed were in the summer of 2010.": apart from the Yoda-ism, the ignorant reader wonders why this is important enough to mention?
    Yodaism fixed, left the seat increase. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City Stand

  • why's the corner bit known as the "Snakepit"?
    I guess it resembles a snake pit? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can answer that, but not in mainspace, as I've never seen any RS explain it. I believe it's where a small group of very vociferous fans decided to locate themselves. It's well named. But until I spot an RS, I'm not going there, I'm afraid ;-) --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrold stand

  • Should "on the former site of the South Stand" read "on the site of the former South Stand"?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest just "fully opened for the next home match three weeks later" rather than yet another exact date and not really relevant opponent
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the "cantilever, single-tiered, all-seated stand" bit is still unnecessarily close paraphrasing. You've already told us that the whole ground is all-seater, so why not drop that bit and turn it round to "a single-tiered stand of cantilever construction (if that's the right phrasing: I'm no engineer) with a capacity of...". And wikilink cantilever, for those of us who haven't the faintest idea
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aviva Community Stand ... "was originally built" implies it's been rebuilt, or undergone major work over many years. Presumably just "was built" would be correct?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting supporter accommodation

  • Ref4 is missing the year of publication.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an actionable comment: I can't agree with Mr Adams about the view being very good from the visitors' section. Not if you're five foot three and towards the front in a full ground it isn't.
    Do you have an RS for that claim?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catering

  • First para reads like an advert for Ms Smith's company.
    Removed last sentence, other two seem neutral and factual to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mostly named after former players and officials, like Darren Huckerby and Sir Arthur South, as well as former club sponsors Lotus Cars": sentence structure needs tweaking. South was linked earlier in the article
    Rephrased, not brilliant mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future plans

  • First para: does 'home' need apostrophes round it? Also, I'd be happier if the occupancy rate were sourced somewhere more independent than the club website's season ticket renewal deadline piece.
    De-apostrophed, not going to find that information anywhere else easily so either we trust NCFC as an RS or who remove the claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The club has had a massive waiting list for season tickets for some years, so I don't think we need to worry too much about them making things up in order to flog a few. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second para: "club has often stated", not clubS. Also, repeats "club has stated" on that same line. Don't think Chairman should be capitalised. Ref59 still goes to the front page of the site
    S removed, removed repeat, replaced C with c, fixed ref. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third para: The 2012 study bit needs a copyedit: the first sentence doesn't say anything, looks like something's got lost somewhere
    Dweller I've left you this... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that better? --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of ground records

  • Suspect the MoS wouldn't condone the bolding
    Done. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's more than enough. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Struway I think we're done? --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I get distracted very easily these days. Thank you both for responding so quickly and satisfactorily to the points made. I won't support or oppose, because I came to try and help improve the article rather than to make a judgment on whether it satisfies criteria I'm completely unfamiliar with. But just as a personal view, I don't find it an easy read when there are so many very small sections.
I don't know if it's normal practice here to use {{Resolved comments}} to de-clutter the page as people do at FLC; if it is, please call me back and I'll hide them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. In honour of your comment, Struway and, once again, Casliber, I just made this edit --Dweller (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller, that last edit was good as the subheaders were breaking up the sections too small. Also some folks do collapse their comments as resolved. I strike them. I think either is fine as long as something is done that visually signifies to the delegates that the reviewer is satisfied. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude edit

  • "Carrow Road saw a crowd of 43,984" - the stadium doesn't have eyes, so it can't have seen the crowd
    Oh Chris, come on! --Dweller (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the home of the Boulton Paul Sports Ground " - not sure the words "the home of" are needed
    Agreed. Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to provide some work for the poor" - the word "some" seems extraneous
    Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the attendance was 29,779, which set a new record crowd for a home game." - is it really necessary to note that the first ever game at the ground set a new attendance record? It would be more meaningful to state how long it was a record for.....
    It was a record for the club, not the new ground! I'll clarify, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "replacement by 1987 of a new City Stand" - think the "of" should be "with"
    Yep, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An extra 160 seats installed were" - a bit of Yoda speak there ;-)
    Odd, I thought I fixed this already. Perhaps there's a problem in The Force.... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " used for the first time on 30 August 1986 when City hosted Southampton" - wikilink Southampton
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was formally opened by the Duchess of Kent on 14 February 1987" - wikilink the Duchess
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Where The Barclay extends around to meet the Geoffrey Watling City Stand, is the Thorpe corner infill" - ditch the comma before "is"
    Ditched. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think the names of the various catering outlets should be in italics
    Put into quotes instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the U21 teams which played against England seem to be wikilinked except Serbia.....
    Linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's all I've picked up..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris, I've done a few of these, I'll leave the others to Dweller, to keep him involved! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, happy to support if those last few points are addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've addressed them all, now, Chris. --Dweller (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattythewhite edit

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Would it be worth adding captions to the image and map in the infobox?
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under-21": don't think it needs capitalising, except when referring to the European Under-21 Championship.
    Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Nest": not sure about the quotation marks.
    Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd put "(FA)" after "The Football Association", so readers know for certain who's being referred to in the next paragraph.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "construction on the new stadium": would it read better as "construction of the new stadium"?
    Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scored by the Canaries' Duggie Lochhead": might just be personal preference, but I'd avoid using a club's nickname.
    Replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1959 FA Cup" -> "1958–59 FA Cup".
    As you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1963, the record was set for attendance for Carrow Road": reads awkwardly to me.
    Replaced second "for" with "at". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rematch of the original fixture versus West Ham was played on 28 July 2015": do we need the year twice in one sentence?
    One 2015 removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "£1.1m" -> "£1.1 million".
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you find the crowd for the Iceland match?
    No, in fact I took that information out because I couldn't source it reliably. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Biggest margin of defeat": unless I'm mistaken, the BBC ref doesn't say it is the biggest margin of defeat.
    Agreed, Dweller? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastern Daily Press references and the two books in the Bibliography are missing publisher locations.
    EDP location added, books don't have publisher location information available. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some references have the publisher wikilinked but others don't. I'd suggest they all be wikilinked (where possible), or none at all.
    Consistently unlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Matty, thanks. Just the "largest margin of defeat" reference outstanding, which I'll leave to Dweller to go find. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might be missing something. The source says "The result was the worst home defeat in Norwich City's 107-year history." Is that too vague? --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, missed that. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure "heaviest home defeat in the club's 107-year history" adds much to that. ([3]) --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAs on football grounds usually have a section on transport. For such a well-attended ground as Carrow Road, I'd think there's a little bit to be said on this topic. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Carrow_Road/archive1&oldid=1088824005"