Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Old Trafford

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PeeJay (talk | contribs) at 20:22, 5 September 2008 (r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Old Trafford

Nominator(s): – PeeJay
Toolbox

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe the article meets the FAC criteria. First, the article covers the subject in a comprehensive manner, and the prose is written in a professional and engaging style, as well as being unbiased. All facts in the article that could be contested have been referenced using inline references. The article is also subject to no more vandalism than would be expected of an article related to one of the biggest football clubs in the world.

The article has a lead section of reasonable length, as compared to the overall length of the article, and summarises the article in a concise fashion. The table of contents contains just eight items, and the article is divided into sections of suitable length and related content. Finally, the article contains several appropriate images, all of which have correct licensing information and, in the case of non-free images, Fair Use rationales.

Please leave as many comments as you wish (although I wouldn't mind a few "Support" votes without need for changes to the article), and I will make every effort to respond to your comments as soon as possible. Thanks. – PeeJay 07:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. WP:FAC, my emphasis. Graham Colm Talk 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Any reason why Old Trafford should not be a disambiguation page? =Nichalp «Talk»=

I believe that the article was moved to Old Trafford from Old Trafford (football ground) with the reasoning that, when referring to "Old Trafford", the overwhelming majority of people would probably think first of the football ground, followed by the cricket ground, and then the area of Manchester. I saw no reason to disagree with that line of thought, and so the article remained where it is. – PeeJay 08:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's fine, per WP:PRIME --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment Image:Oldtraffordaverageattendances.png needs a link to the licence or an OTRS ticket Fasach Nua (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the image with an alternative that is definitely free as I created it myself. – PeeJay 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isnt really a FA comment, but the capacity could be plotted on the graph too, I think the attendence data on its own can be slightly misleading, 30,000 people in a 31,000 stadium, in my opinion is more significant than 40,000 in an 80,000 capacity stadium. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by User:Dweller

Needs a third-party copy-edit. Some examples of things I spotted:

  • OT is not "behind" Wembley
    • Reworded.
  • Nor is OT "outside of football" (or inside of it for that matter)
    • Reworded.
  • "However, further investment of approximately £30,000 would have been required" implies building an 80K capacity cost £0
    • Reworded.
  • Lack of referencing in parag opening "Prior to the construction..."
    • Referenced.
  • OR alert: sentence starting "At the ground's present capacity of 76,212,"
    • Removed. Completely missed that one myself *eep*
  • "a roof was added to the United Road stand for the first time" made me realise no mention's been made of the various stands. Name them when you state they were built, and explain their names.
    • A description of each stand is included in the "Structure and facilities" section, but I have now added notes in parentheses to the first mention of each stand in order to identify them by their current names.
  • "The War Commission" wassat?
    • Linked.
  • Cite use of Maine Rd
    • Cited.
  • Parag opening "The 1970s" is a single sentence parag. Also, it needs multiple referencing for some big claims, even if they're from same source
    • Merged into previous paragraph and referenced rise of hooliganism in the 1970s.
  • Parag opening "The Old Trafford pitch" entirely unsourced
    • To be honest, it's tough to find sources for the actual structure of Old Trafford. The section about the stadium on the club's official website is utter rubbish (although I have used the Seating Plan page to cite the fact that there are four stands, and the number of tiers in each), and most other sources are blogsites, and therefore unusable.
  • "megastore" or "Megastore"?
    • Fixed.

etc Sorry, cos this is a fine piece of work and not far off FA quality. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. I wonder if you wouldn't mind listing a few more complaints so that I can deal with those too. Cheers. – PeeJay 14:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Won't be able to get back here before Monday at soonest, but really a third party copyedit from someone not already snowed under (ie not me) should pick up most of these irritating detractions from a first-rate article --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Jameboy (talk · contribs)

Some comments around the images:

  • Why are the images at the top of the article large and those near the bottom small? Should the standard "thumb" parameter not be applied, with numbers of pixels removed?
    • Done.
  • "The area indicated by dotted lines is the section designated for away fans." I can't see this without clicking through to the image. Could you amend the image to shade or colour the away section?
    • Shaded the area and amended the caption to match.
  • I don't find the average attendances graph very useful in its current form. Having values for every point on the graph is distracting and makes it a bit busy. Could you make the line slightly thicker? And wouldn't a red line rather than orange be more fitting (although not essential)? In this case it may also be worth expanding the image slightly for clarity, even if it meant overriding the default number of pixels of the "thumb" parameter. I'm assuming that those viewing the graph within the context of the article would merely be interested in the trend (while those interested in the detail would click through), but on my monitor at least, the trend is hard to see without putting my face near the screen due to the value labels cluttering it up. The x-axis also quite busy - could you make the x-axis labels (say) every two years instead of every year? --Jameboy (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the values for each point on the graph, thickened the trend line and changed it to red, but I haven't increased the size of the image yet, as I think it would be best to see how it looks with the modifications at the same size first. – PeeJay 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those all look fine now, much clearer - good work. The graph seems clear enough now without further re-sizing. I'll have a proper read through when I get a chance before deciding whether to support or not. --Jameboy (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • "Second only to Wembley Stadium, Old Trafford has one of the largest capacities of any English football stadium at just over 76,000, and is the only UEFA 5-star rated facility in England."
    • You say its the second biggest stadium in England and then say one of the largest stadiums. Secondly I would change "over 76,000" to the exact capacity; there's no reason to be inexact in the lead and expect someone to go searching for its capacity. I would reword this sentence.
      • Out of interest, what would you suggest that I change the wording of the sentence to? I agree that the exact capacity should be used, but other than that, the wording seems fine.
        • I would suggest anything that removes one of "second only" and "one of the largest capacities", something along the lines of "With a capacity of 76,212, Old Trafford the second largest football stadium in England behind only Wembley Stadium, and is the only UEFA 5-star rated facility in England." Peanut4 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a source for the information on Image:Oldtraffordaverageattendances.png needs to be added.
    • Sourced on the image page.
  • All my other concerns were addressed at the peer review. Peanut4 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've made a few changes to eliminate redundancy and to tidy the prose. Please be careful not to over use expressions like this meant that, located in , as well as and also. Well done. Graham Colm Talk 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I agree whit GrahamColm. The article is good!--Andrea 93 (msg) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Old_Trafford&oldid=236516303"