Jump to content

Talk:Gateshead International Stadium/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 13:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Arsenikk (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I have carried out a general copyedit of the article. You may want to double-check the diffs to ensure that I have no unintentionally changed the meaning of any of the content.
Done and I think these are fine. Thanks for taking the time to do this :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, please note that year ranges use endashes and not hyphens. (fixed)
  • The second sentence is too long—please split it in two.
Done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I corrected the number of of significant digits in the conversions in the lead (see my edit to see how to fix this).
  • "worldwide credibility" isn't an encyclopedic term.
I've changed the wording to try and amend this. Meetthefeebles (talk)
  • Don't combine a dash with wording (e.g. "in 2003–10" and "from 2003 to 2010" are okay, but "from 2003–10" is not).
I am dreadful at this endash business, but I've made some corrective changes (I think). Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is always a (non-breaking) space between a number and a unit of measurement
I think I've corrected these. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boasts" and "numerous internationally-renowned artists" are not encyclopedic terms (even though I would not say that they were incorrect either). It is better to be subtle and let the reader make subjective decisions.
I've removed both terms. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The history of the Gateshead International Stadium is intrinsically linked with the history of Felling." sounds weird, is not encyclopedic and from what I can tell isn't particularly accurate either. I have removed it.
No problem. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have de-linked a number of repeated links in the body. Links in the lead should not be repeated.
Thanks Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not need to specify which paragraph information is sourced from, page numbers are sufficient (although there is nothing wrong doing so for that matter).
I prefer to do it to better assist readers/reviewers who may not wish to read the whole page. Personal preference I suppose and I am glad it isn't 'wrong' :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in truth" should be unnecessary to add, as I hope you are not lying in the rest of the article.
Indeed!Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the "early land use": is this the history of the lot in which the stadium is located? If so, this should be explicitly stated. I would recommend merging the first two sections to "establishment" or something like that and trimming the general history bit of Felling.
  • The history section is so short that I would not have included section headers. I will leave this to your discretion and will not hold it against the GA review if they are kept, as it is ultimately a matter of preference.
I've made a slight rewrite and combined the entire section to encompass both of the points above.Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scare quotes (such as "ambitious") should never be used on Wikipedia, as they are used to intimidate the reader into the authors point of view. Also the word ambitious should be avoided, except in quoting statements.
Removed.Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence starting with "One of the first acts..." is too long to read comfortably.
I've broken this up Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Note that Tartan track is a trademark for a particular brand and that the correct generic name is all-weather running track (which should be linked).

This has been done (the track now is actually Tartan Track and I've linked this later on).Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "£8m" shorthand for million should be avoided.
I think you removed this for me Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last half of the sentence starting with "Having proven a success..." reads a bit awkward.
I've reworded and this should be better. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel Coe's comments add any encyclopedic value to the article. Of course the dignitary who is set to open a venue will praise it.
Fair point. I've removed the quote and simply stated that Coe opened the venue.
  • "including the new build" doesn't make sense.
I've given this paragraph a slight rewrite as it didn't quite read 'right'. Should be better now. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening year of the Tyne and Wear Stand is mentioned in the structure section, but not in the history.
I've added it to the history section. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid "here" and "there", as undoubtedly I as the reader am not anywhere near Gateshead as I read the article.
I've taken out the 'here'? Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for running distances, add conversion to distances.
I think I've spotted and fixed those I originally missed out. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAAF? This needs to be spelled out and linked the first time. People not familiar with athletics probably do not know what it is.
Makes sense. Added and linked. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fair bit of what constitutes the facility's history is in the facility section (years etc).
I think I've corrected this Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article tends to begin sections with a rather vague sentence, like "Gateshead International Stadium has a long history of hosting athletic events.", "Gateshead Football Club has a chequered history." and "Gateshead Harriers have a long athletic tradition".Neither of these actually add much value for the reader as they do not present facts.
I've removed these (bad habit of mine).Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence starting with "According to its sponsors" is too long.
I've split it in half. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "athletics" section is written in past tense, so "now" should be avoided. Perhaps replace with "by then"
I spotted two of these and have changed them as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "landmark status" according to whom? Using quotation marks will always give the reader an expectation to know who makes the statement.
I've reworded this section slightly.Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "put the stadium on the sporting map": again, what does this actually entail? If you can present more objective terms, it will be all the better for an encyclopedia. The challenge with Wikipedia is that we expect a significantly different jargon that many other places. Although it can be tempting to use a more journalistic language through the use of quotations, its repeated use waters out the neutrality of the work.
This highlights the biggest problem I have when editing wikipedia (save my useless knowledge of HTML). I am used to writing in a verbose and entertaining way and phrases which to me seem perfectly boring sometimes aren't. Anyhoo, I've removed and rewritten. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mens" is not capitalized.
Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "21-year-old" uses hyphens, while endashes used for punctuation are spaced on both sides. There seem to be a lot of incorrectly used dashes.
  • The fragment starting with "prompting a..." uses promt twice in close succession. It is also too long to fit comfortably in a single sentence.
Reworded Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-abbreviate BAFL and RFL.
Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half the history of Gateshead F.C. is prior to placing at Gateshead Stadium. This should be reduced to a bear minimum and instead focus on the period at the stadium in question.
I've sliced big chunks out and left about enough to give context to the section I think. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an encyclopedia we do not "hope" for things.
Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • State "2012 Olympics in London" instead of "London 2012", as it may not be obvious to many what the latter is.
Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason there is so little on the Senators compared to the other tenants?
As they are former tenants, I didn't feel it necessary to go into the same level of depth as the current tenants. Do you think this is incorrect? I can probably find and add a bit more if necessary? Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you could add some more, it would be better. They placed at the stadium for 24 years, so they are no minor part of its history. Arsenikk (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been done :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictures of performing artist at the bar seems rather trivial to me.
Gone Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the metro station is only part of the transport section, it should not be in the {{main}} subheader.
Also gone :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioning the closest international airport seems a bit excessive to me. The transport section is not a travel guide, but rather an assessment of how the stadium effects transport in the city.
This is the first article I've edited on sports/stadia so beforehand I looked at Old Trafford (which is a FA) and saw it was included there so I did likewise. I can take it out if you feel it inappropriate? Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a bit concerned about note 7. The refs should be formatted and placed inline, and using a Wikipedia page as a reference is not permitted. The question is what references were used for the basis of his Wikipedia article stating what it does.
The wiki article cites no sources (sadly) but they are not difficult to find: a quick google search yielded a fair few and I've cited one in place of the wikipedia page. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, notes should be used to sort out disagreements in sources, specifications about spelling or similar issues. They should not be used to elaborate further on the content. Either the details presented are notable enough to be included in the body, or they should be left out. Reading the article by scrolling up and down to the notes to get all the details is just going to irritate the reader.
Okay, I've removed all but two of the notes and incorporated the content in the main body of the article. Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tip: if newspaper names are defined in the references as "work" instead of "publisher" they will automatically be in italics.
Thanks, I didn't know this (once more my HTML ignorance shines through). I've changed all of the newspapers accordingly. Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If author is unknown, just leave it out of the reference.
All now removed I think. Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11 and 55 lacks access date, as do the journals etc.
I've added accessdate to refs. 11 and 55. Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gone Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it (though it is a poor pic really and it is sad that this is probably the best one on Wiki/Commons). Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid forcing image sizes. If you want the portrait-aligned, use "upright" in the syntax.
Again, I think this is done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think... Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the number of comments I am generally impressed with the article. Most of the above are rather trivial and regarding issues such as scope and referencing the article meets the standards. I am placing on hold. Arsenikk (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for you the detailed comments. I'll have a good look through these after I finish work today. Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you for taking the time to review. I think I've now addressed all of the comments raised :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A most enjoyable article to review; my family on my grandmother's side is from Gateshead, although I have only been there for a few hours. A quick tip: many editors consider it poor etiquette to strike other people's comments; only the person making a comment should strike it. Don't worry about it here, but some reviewers can be slightly irritated with this type of formatting. A simple 'done' or equivalent is often preferred. As for the overall evaluation, if you could add a short section on the Senators, I would be more than happy to pass the article. Arsenikk (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the first time I've used the strikethrough thing– I'll certainly not be doing so again, thank you for the advice. I'll get some stuff on the Senators added tomorrow...Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC) EDIT- I've added info on the Senators as requested (not as easy as I had expected as there isn't a lot of info about) Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gateshead_International_Stadium/GA1&oldid=1146889796"