Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North Road (stadium)/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 SandyGeorgia 00:23, 9 August 2009 [1].

North Road (stadium) edit

Nominator(s): – PeeJay 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it would be impossible to expand this article any further unless new information were to come to light. I believe that this article meets all of the Featured Article criteria and that the only thing it is missing is a photograph of the site as it exists now, which I should be able to obtain by the time this nomination is complete. Opinions are welcomed and encouraged. – PeeJay 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cliftonian (talk · contribs) – looks good generally, just a few points that need clearing up:

  • "It was the first home of Manchester United F.C." – I'd expand this to "Manchester United Football Club".
    • Done
  • "The ground was originally just a pitch, around which an estimated 12,000 spectators could congregate, but the addition of stands by the club in 1891 increased the capacity to around 15,000. However, the football club split from the railway company by whom they were run and, without the company's financial support, they were unable to afford the rent on the ground and were evicted." – This whole paragraph is very clunky and awkward, I'd be happier if it was re-written.
    • Wording seems fine to me. Could you perhaps suggest alternative wording that with which you would be happier?
      • The aspect which seems weakest to me is the first line – "The ground was originally just a pitch". Doesn't sound very good to me – perhaps "Originally, the ground consisted only of the pitch, around which an estimated 12,000 spectators could congregate. On the club's addition of stands in 1891 the capacity was increased to around 15,000." The rest is fine. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead, they had to change at a pub – The Three Crowns – a few hundred yards away on Oldham Road." – A bit too stop-and-start for my taste – try "Instead, they had to change at The Three Crowns public house a few hundred yards away on Oldham Road."
    • Done
  • "Fortunately, the club's management had been seeking a new stadium ever since the first attempted eviction in May 1892," – "Fortunately"? I wouldn't use this word in an encyclopaedic article.
    • I've removed "fortunately".
  • "the site now serves as the location of the North Manchester Business Park, and before that it was Moston Brook High School." – chronology all wrong. It should be "the site served as the location of Moston Brook High School, before becoming North Manchester Business Park in *date*.
    • Done, with some extra additions
  • "A red plaque could once be found attached to one of the school's walls" – when?
    • The sources don't say when it was attached.
  • "the plaque has since been stolen" – when?
    • The sources don't say when it was stolen.

Looks good otherwise. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comments, mate. Glad you liked the article for the most part. Nevertheless, if you could suggest alternative wording for the passage you commented on above, that'd be very helpful. – PeeJay 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I'm happy enough with it now, that paragraph still irks me a bit but it doesn't stop me changing my stance above. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Cliftonian. I have changed the paragraph like you suggested. Your version certainly reads better than mine did. I seem to have a penchant for sentences with lots of clauses! – PeeJay 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 06:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images shouldn't be watermarked Fasach Nua (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's how the image came from the website. Not sure how to get hold of a similar map for myself. – PeeJay 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try File:North_road_os.png, I dont have a commons account, but if you could transfer it, that would be peachy! Fasach Nua (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now transferred that image to Commons. Thanks very much for doing that for me, FN. Hope you'll support the article's promotion. – PeeJay 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To eliminate watermarks from that site browse it with firefox, with the Adblock Plus add-in. Then just block the watermark from that site, before screencapping. Nothing wrong with doing that, after all its the watermark that carries the copyright, not the map. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport

  • "Unable to afford the increased rent, especially as the Manchester Deans and Canons felt it inappropriate for the club to charge admission to the ground, the Heathens were served with an eviction notice in June 1893."

I know that the Heathens was a nickname of the club. But anyone reading the article who was unaware of this fact might assume that the religious organization evicted them partly on religious grounds. You might want to change the sentence a bit or explain that it was a nickname. Might also want to say what the organization felt about Newton Heath's nickname, if it is known.--EchetusXe (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've italicised "Heathens" to highlight the fact that this is a nickname. Do you think that, in conjunction with the fact that "Heathens" is spelled with a capital H, this will be enough? – PeeJay 09:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Unless anyone else thinks it is not enough?--EchetusXe (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A small, detailed article with solid prose. Excellent work. My scans could not detect any defects. ceranthor 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment makes me extremely proud of this article. Goes to show that not all Featured Articles have to be tens of thousands of kilobytes in size! – PeeJay 21:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that the article is extremely short, though. If promoted, it would likely be the second shortest FA. This shortness might be from a lack of comprehensiveness, but I do not have the knowledge in the area to research. ceranthor 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: 789 words of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an odd name

  • The article's sole top-level section is "History". If other sources are found, consider adding at least one more for the stadium's structure. It mentions that the stadium eventually got grandstands; any data on the surface area or dimensions of the stadium, or the height of the stands? Seating arrangements? Popularity and revenues over time? I know it's tough to source those things, but criteria 1b is very demanding and I've received concerns about sales data in an unrelated good article nom. Try to find library support or other sources (including pay databases) if at all possible.
    • I've added a short section on the ground's history as a cricket field, but it is very short. A section on record attendances has also been added. I will try to add a section on the ground's "structure and facilities" per the Old Trafford article, but there's not much that could be said there that hasn't already been said in the History section.
      • Nice work on the attendance figures. It's clear now that it brought the crowds even so long ago!
  • How is ref 11 reliable? Not much author, editor, or fact-checking mentions there at all, looks blog-ish. I'm not even sure that it says a school was opened at that site.
    • Yes, you're probably right about that. The Gary James reference was intended to show that the school was erected on the same site, but that's obviously not clear, and I'll try to find a reference for the closure of the school.
      • I see. It looks ok now.

Article, ref dates, formatting, dabs, and links look good otherwise. --an odd name 00:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, AON. I'll get to work on adding as much as I can. – PeeJay 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I replied above. --an odd name 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – Redundancy: "They attempted to take the two grandstands with them, but the attempt failed and the stands were sold for just $100." (not really, but us American don't have pound signs on our keyboards :-)) Attempted and attempt probably shouldn't be repeated in such close proximity. Overall, I'm shaky on this article because the writing seems fine, but there isn't much of it. It just feels like there is more that could be said, but isn't because newspaper sources from the time aren't utilized. In addition to the mentioned lack of a section on the facilities, there's nothing on record attendances, or whether they have been lost to history. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed "They attempted..." to "They tried...", so that "attempt" isn't used too often in quick succession. As I have mentioned to User:AnOddName, I have also added a section on other uses and a section about record attendances at the ground has also been added. – PeeJay 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on sources
  • Slightly confused by your "General" and "Specific" subdivisions in the References section. "General" rather implies background reading, yet all these works have been specifically cited. It might be clearer if the citations were listed as "References" and the booklist as "Bibliography" or "Sources"
    • Probably a good idea, but I thought that the "General" references would have indicated that those books were used as general references for the entire article, while the "Specific" references would allow for the citation of individual facts from within those books.
  • Per above, I'm a bit concerned at the reliability of http://www.northmanchester.net/content/view/90/2/
    • This page at politics.co.uk also mentions the school's closure in August 2000, but I don't know how reliable it is. It would also seem a bit odd to have an MP's profile page in the middle of an article about a football ground!
      • See Ealdgyth's comment below. Brianboulton (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh huh, and what do you think of the alternative reference I suggested above? – PeeJay 09:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look solid. Brianboulton (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied above. – PeeJay 11:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • I too share Brian's concerns with http://www.northmanchester.net/content/view/90/2/ Surely this was covered in a newspaper article? I can't find anything on the website that shows who they are.
    • What do you think of the politics.co.uk source I provided above? – PeeJay 09:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same problems, who's behind the site? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I've completely replaced the ref with a site run by the British government. Had to ask at WP:GM for help in finding it though. – PeeJay 22:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. There's a tendency towards a slightly pompous texture. It needs a thorough, independent audit of the prose. Here are random examples from the top.

  • Awkward: "the football club split from the railway company by whom they were run"
  • "Upon" twice in one sentence? I don't want any of them: "Upon the foundation of Newton Heath L&YR F.C. at the request of the employees of the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Company's Carriage and Wagon Works, it became apparent that the club would require a pitch upon which to play."
  • "the site chosen was a "bumpy, stony patch in summer, [and] a muddy, heavy swamp in the rainy months",[2] and owned by the Manchester Cathedral authorities." -> "the chosen site – owned by the Manchester Cathedral authoritie – was a "bumpy, stony patch in summer, [and] a muddy, heavy swamp in the rainy months".[2]" Tony (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of opposing, could you not have simply left comments for me to deal with? I can easily make any changes you suggest, but an "Oppose" !vote just means that I'm going to have to go through this whole process again as soon as it closes. Anyway, I've made the changes you suggested, with the exception of the first one, which is actually the most efficient way of getting the message across. By the way, what do you mean by "a pompous texture"? – PeeJay 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "the football club split from its parent railway company" for the first? You'd avoid the "by" problem and get crisper text. Tony gives other suggestions at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a; "Misplaced formality" suggests alternate words, for example. --an odd name 21:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good suggestion! Can't believe I didn't think of that one! By the way, I would really appreciate it if someone would give this article a thorough copyediting, if that's what it needs. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do it myself, seeing as I'm the principle contributor to the article, and Peer Reviews get piss-poor responses these days. Seems like FAC is the only way to get an article properly reviewed sometimes! – PeeJay 21:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the team of Ruhrfisch, Finetooth, and Brianboulton usually make sure that no article goes without a proper peer review these days. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dabomb. This article wasn't submitted for peer review; had it been, most of the prose issues raised at this FAC would probably have been sorted out long ago. Something to bear in mind next time, perhaps? Brianboulton (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Correction: it was peer-reviewed in October 2008, before I got involved. Sorry! Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Has the nomination been copy-edited yet? Please ping me when it has. Tony (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing oppose: the prose is much better (thanks to Malleus et al.). But if it's promoted, please make it a top priority to bulk it up a bit—this is on the slender side for an FA, and I wonder what further information might be included from the sources. Tony (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is L&YR ... make it tight for those not in the know ... Newton Heath L&YR Football Club SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (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/North_Road_(stadium)/archive1&oldid=1138468032"