Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/City of Manchester Stadium/archive1

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

The article was kept by Marskell 23:30, 15 September 2009 [1].

City of Manchester Stadium edit

Review commentary edit

WikiProjects notified

Although fairly well written, the article fails 1c. A few paragraphs are entirely uncited and even though it's a fairly small article, there are just 30 references. I assume an article on such a large and well known stadium would have more. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the requisite number of references in your opinion?
What needs referencing (I would add CN tags but I despise them and know that others do too.
Structure: East Stand bit, Kippax etc
History: "The conversion cost £35 million, which was paid for by the football club."
and the paragraph after that sentence.
Transport: The first paragraph, particularly nearest station
Concerts: The last paragraph, particularly the one about the concerts being cancelled for 2009.
In terms of the rest of the article, it is well written, there are some paragraphs that seem to have been tagged on and they could do with a bit of "blending in." I do feel that this probably didn't need an FAR, a note to the talkpage would have sufficed. There is nothing gravely wrong here as there is with some of the other FAs. Woody (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never heard of alt text until now, hopefully the alt text I've added is appropriate. I've done some of Woody's list, will do the rest in due course. Assumptions are rather less actionable... Oldelpaso (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is a new requirement, the software has only just been changed to allow it. The text you added looks good to me, I fixed up the minor formatting issues. Woody (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding that nice alt text. However, two images still need alt text; could you fix those too, please? See http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/altviewer.py?page=City_of_Manchester_Stadium and scroll to the end of the page. Eubulides (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The viewer doesn't seem to deal with {{Double image stack}} It does have alt text functionality and that is shown in the tool viewer, but it doesn't seem to have a caption. The infobox image doesn't have a caption, and rightly so, but it does have alt text. Woody (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weird; the viewer worked for me; perhaps this was because of your recent edit to City of Manchester? Anyway, the alt text is done now, and thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, a wee purge and I was good. Woody (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another bunch of references added. I've used footballgroundguide.com for a transport ref, which was left for consideration by Ealdgyth in this FAC, but the sentence is entirely uncontroversial. For concerts, I've not done much other than to remove mention that there are none in 2009, since that was of no real consequence. This is because more widely, I'm not entirely sure what to do with it. Previously, I've just mentioned a couple of examples of artists who have performed there, but the paragraph tends to attract edits adding more and more until it becomes an unwieldy long list in the middle of a sentence. Is there any value in providing a complete list? I'm minded to say no, but I'd welcome further opinion. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary (or practical) to include a full list; a few examples perhaps of the most significant ones should suffice. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like this should be easy to rescue. I'll try to work on it in coming days. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't believe there are any specific number of references that need to be used. Just enough that cites every fact mentioned in the article. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – Reference 31 needs a publisher. The lead is on the short side and could serve to be beefed up. Otherwise, I agree that it looks salvagable with a few more sources for light spots. The ends of paragraphs would benefit from cites in a few spots. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dabs and dead links need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed those. I also found that link to the Mirror that is being used is dead; also the Mirror is a tabloid newspaper and not the most reliable of sources. ("Blue Moan". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 18 September 2006.) Woody (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mirror isn't ideal, though after checking it on Newsbank, most of the part the citation refers to was a quote from then-manager Stuart Pearce. I could go either way with it, but given the nature of the source publication I think I'll remove it. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to fix a few things so I won't be closing this. I can't get access to the MEN etc, but the dates of the paper need to be added. Also I think more information should be added to the planning and construction. Usually, these things are always the subject of protests and lobbying etc, expecially in western countries YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the dates are usually in the online sources, but I have access to the MEN and to Newsbank anyway, so I'll add any missing dates. I'll also have a look through for any significant planning objections etc. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because ISO 8601 should only be used for accessdates, other dates should match the date format used in the rest of the article. See here for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know of any protests. I've read pretty much every source that discusses the stadium in detail, and I was a regular reader of the Manchester Evening News throughout the planning and construction period. Before the stadium was built the area was essentially waste ground, and had seen little investment in a great many years. The main local landmark was a gasometer. A minority of Manchester City supporters were unsure about the move for sentimental reasons. I have vague memories of a poll being conducted in relation to this, I see what I can find. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newsbank only has the MEN from 2001 onwards unfortunately, so I'm struggling to find anything more. I have a pile of match programmes from the period which I haven't looked through yet, but since they are published by the football club, I doubt they'd uncover anything in this respect. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copy-edited the lead and first section; I must say, it needed doing; perhaps the rest could be massaged too. Overlinking. In addition, I unlinked quite a few trivial dictionary words and simplified a cryptically piped item. I am mystified by this pipe, too: "The first public football match at the stadium was a [[exhibition game|friendly]] between Manchester City and ..." Another unsatisfactory pipe is this: "Entry is gained by [[radio-frequency identification|RFID]] smart card". Readers should not have to hit the link to find out what on earth it means. Tony (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony. Friendly match redirects to the AmEng equivalent exhibition game. The second one is probably down to too much reading of Slashdot on my part. I've replaced it with a more specific link, contactless smart card. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provided the above issue about dates is addressed. Some niggles that could be improved:
  • "The track was removed and relaid at other athletics venues" Really? That makes it sound like a piece of carpet. Plus if it is one track, how can it be relaid in several places? This should be rephrased to make clear what is meant.
  • "...replaced with a permanent structure of similar design to the opposite end." This just doesn't scan right. If the article can specify in the previous para which end (north or south) had the permanent structure in its Games configuration, the sentence I've quoted can then be re-written as "...replaced with a permanent structure of similar design to that already existing at the [compasspoint] end." - which i think would be clearer.
  • Is a reference available for the capacities of the corporate boxes?
  • "Entry is gained by RFID smart card rather than the traditional manned turnstile." Does this mean you cannot purchase entry at the stadium??
  • "After the club were taken over..." Club is singular - should read "club was..." I think.
  • "In front of the stadium is the tallest sculpture in the UK, B of the Bang, built to commemorate the success of the 2002 Commonwealth Games". A couple of things - first, it has been partially (perhaps fully by now) dismantled following structural problems, and the article should reflect this. Second, normally the artist's name(s) should be included - yet even the article about the sculpture itself doesn't seem to have one. However, this article indicates the designer was Thomas Heatherwick Studio. I suggest this be included and the article used as the cite.
  • There is no reference for all the concerts that have taken place there, nor that Take That's DVD included stadium concert footage.

A lot of niggles that i'd like fixed, but a bit like an earlier editor, i'd rate this as mostly talk page stuff or DIY rather than FARC. I'm assuming good faith and rating this a keep. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed I think. The part about the track was missing the key word sections. The process was more like carpet than you'd think. While undoubtedly true (I've seen them myself), I couldn't find anything bulletproof RS wise for the capacity of the executive boxes, only promotional material. Since it is an entirely trivial piece of information which adds no real understanding I've removed it.
You cannot pay on the gate at the stadium - it only hosts all-ticket events. However, I doubt I'll be able to find a source saying that since it is a case of trying to prove a negative. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's... wierd. OK, thanks for the fixes, happy now. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still original research. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I try to be a hawk on this issue, but in this case I'd probably let it go. I think the fact that the system operates by card-swipe might be legitimately covered under 'common knowledge' (a WP principle I usually hate to apply): I would suggest it is probably covered by being a "Plain sight observation that can be made from public property". Nit-pickers may wish to question whether this is de jure public property, but I think it should be accepted as de facto the case. The fact that you can't pay at the stadium is not actually stated in the article - it was a Q and A I had with an editor here - so the issue does not arise. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough... Aaroncrick (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the use of smart cards part is covered by the same ref as the sentence following it. I dislike calling the same ref repeatedly for consecutive sentences. Oldelpaso (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the status of this review? Is there anything else to be fixed? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have marked some links that don't check out. —mattisse (Talk) 01:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been following the article, and if/when Matisse's tags are addressed, I'll be willing to support a keep. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>

  • <groan> This is the curse of the internet era. i have corrected one URL, and found an alternative source for a second. My view for the remaining four is as follows: delete the fact and ref for the claim that the poll showed it was UK's second most popular ground. I don't know how reliable the source was in the first place, and in the long run who cares about a reader poll in 2005 or whenever it was. The others: these were valid media releases from the Club, and their retrieval dates are shown. The Club appears simply to no longer retain old releases on its site. That doesn't make the release invalid. It was a real piece of info from a reliable source at the time. Remove the URL, and leave it as an offline source. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed all the links, it really wasn't hard. Checklinks is very good for that as it does all the hard work! Regards, Woody (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still two problematic links {{failed verification}}. Please don't use link checker as final decision maker, as it is not always correct. —mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you defining "problematic links"? What's the problem you've identified? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't presume that it is, nor that it is a solution to all of the world's ills but it does helps to fix links rather than tag them. Instead of focusing on its shortcomings I encourage you to use the inbuilt tools to help fix broken links. Woody (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and you were wrong about the Arup link: <Quote>:"2003: Institute of Structural Engineers, Special Structural Award; 2003: Structural Steel Design Award; 2003: Building Services Awards, Major Project of the Year; 2002: British Construction Industry Award "</Quote> Woody (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I define problematic links as links that go to a site that does not contain the referenced material. The link checker is often inaccurate, and often its suggestions for a fix are inaccurate. —mattisse (Talk) 00:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woody, I'm not familiar with the operation of the tool to which you refer, but I'm with Mattisse I think - first, the Arup link is now OK because I changed it to a new address - I must have forgotten to remove an alert tag, sorry. On the others: they linked to valid web addresses, but the facts in the article were not found at that address, and my attempts to search the relevant site for them failed to turn up the cited media releases (as outlined above). hamiltonstone (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it wasn't you, check the diffs. Matise added it after you had made your edits and I presume the website didn't update itself in the hour between that edit and my check. In terms of checklinks, I use to add links to the webarchive/wayback machine. Using it I have recovered those press statements that you talk about. It is quite easy to use when you get the hang of it. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks for that, I hadn't realised the link checker had the capacity to make alternative suggestions for faulty links. My first attempt to use it (for a suspect link at Canberra) didn't work, but i will persist. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checklinks does not provide suggestions it only provides information on what's going on with the link. Only tools for manipulation of links. The tool was originally designed mass link fixing and included analysis on how redirects behaved. An interface redesign has been sorely needed, but I haven't found a good design for it. Also, related to this article I've fixed a bug in commonfixes that cause Wayback links containing single '{' and '}' to be treated as the end of template when correcting url=/archiveurl= links. — Dispenser 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant work has been done on the article, and it appears that the problems raised in the FAR have been addressed. After reading the article, I don't have any significant questions about the subject, so I think it does a good job of explanation. Good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as someone who has done some work on this. Frankly. I don't think it needed to get to FARC but that is my opinion. I think all of the little niggles with sourcing have been rectified now and this article complies with all of the FA criteria. Woody (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Wasn't in bad shape when the FAR started, and it still meets FA criteria with the recent improvements. One picky thing: two Gary James books are listed in the references, but only one is actually used in the cites. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like one got mislabelled when some ref formatting was tweaked. Now fixed. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – You're right, the article wasn't in bad shape to start with. At least now with some copy edits and a few tweaks, it souldn't be nominated for many years down the track. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I distinctly remember FAC candidate quite recently. Isn't it a three-month minimum? Looks OK. What is wrong with 30 refs? Keep. Tony (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony you gave the article a copy edit over a month ago...? Aaroncrick (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason this is still open and hasn't been closed as a keep?? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • YellowMonkey did a bit of work on the article and therefore has recused from closing this. We're waiting for Marskell or Raul. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "plans for this have since been abandoned." Ref for this? Surely not common knowledge, and without a source, it can't be verified if one doesn't live near there. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:51, 14 September 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_review/City_of_Manchester_Stadium/archive1&oldid=1138476798"