Talk:Manchester Arena: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:34, 3 January 2007

POV tag

Chunks of this read as though they were written by someone responsible for marketing the MEN Arena. As such, I've inserted a POV tag until these sections are resolved. Matthew 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than one or two points, I would say that the article was pretty accurate, rather than marketing. Many of the points made talking about the success of the arena are true, and should be included. Though are are no criticisms of the arena in the article, I can find no evidence myself there are any major ones, and I feel that the article overall giving the impression the arena is a huge success in a correct one. Eastlygod 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 18:32, 3 January 2007 edit Eastlygod (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,078 edits →POV tag ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:34, 3 January 2007 edit undo Eastlygod (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,078 edits →POV tag Next edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Chunks of this read as though they were written by someone responsible for marketing the MEN Arena. As such, I've inserted a POV tag until these sections are resolved. [[User:Majabl\|Matthew]] 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)		Chunks of this read as though they were written by someone responsible for marketing the MEN Arena. As such, I've inserted a POV tag until these sections are resolved. [[User:Majabl\|Matthew]] 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


	Other than one or two points, I would say that the article was pretty accurate, rather than marketing. Many of the points made talking about the success of the arena are true, and should be included. Though are are no criticisms of the arena in the article, I can find no evidence myself there are any major ones, and I feel that the article overall giving the impression the arena is a huge success in a correct one. [[User:Eastlygod\|Eastlygod]] 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)		Other than one or two points, I would say that the article was pretty accurate, rather than marketing. Many of the points made talking about the success of the arena are true, and should be included. Though are are no criticisms of the arena in the article, I can find no evidence myself there are any major ones, and I feel that the article overall giving the impression the arena is a huge success in a correct one. [[User:Eastlygod\|Eastlygod]] 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)