Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Old Trafford

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 User:SandyGeorgia 18:12, 13 September 2008 [1].

Old Trafford

[edit]
Nominator(s): – PeeJay


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 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 All my concerns were addressed at the peer review stage, with a couple of minor other issues now brought up also fixed. Peanut4 (talk) 21:05, 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]
  • Oppose Support my issues have bee resolved and the article is looking a lot better, now following all necessary criteria.
    • The above support is from Domiy.[2]

due to mainly POV and other issues. Please note that the word 'famous' is blatantly an issue of WP:POV. It may be great, it may be well known etc, but an encyclopedia is not there to make assumptions and call something 'famous' based on somebody's point of view. Remove this word from the Busby picture caption and this statement - Perhaps the most famous stand at Old Trafford is the West Stand, also known as the Stretford End. Also search for this throughout the article, I have briefly found a few more sentences with words like 'great'. You have to make it sound more formal and neutral.

  • I also think its worth mentioning quickly that Man U are one of the most succesful football clubs in England. As much as a Chelsea fan as I am (although not an Englishmen!), it's still definitely an obvious figure that Man U are just about the most succesful club in England. So, you could just mention this when you say "Old Trafford is the home of Man U".
    • It may be obvious to a football fan, but this article has to assume that the reader knows nothing about the subject. Therefore, it seems appropriate to mention a little bit of background about the stadium's tenants. – PeeJay 11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:lead, I don't think this meets the correct structure. Ensure that you explain most of the upcoming info within the first lead section. I see nothing in there about past/future construction and display, the stadium's notable history either. I also think it's worth mentioning a quick notable record or transport surrounding in the lead.
  • I see no information about the bombings during the World War. This is bought up in the lead and is perceived as a main historic significance behind the stadium's past, but instead it is only mentioned once in the article again. This needs to be expanded upon I think. Clearly doesn't follow content criteria.
    • There really is not that much to say about the bombing of Old Trafford. The ground was bombed, leaving it unusable for nearly 10 years, so United had to use Maine Road in the meantime. The club then got some compensation from the government and the ground was built back up again. Like I said, there's bugger all to say about it, so I think the amount that I wrote about it in the article is appropriate. – PeeJay 11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had an article opposed and failed over the use of a stadium's picture just like you have used. Even though it had the perfectly correct tag (the same as the Old Trafford main image one) and had relevant author information, my nomination was treated against opposition for the use of possible copyright issues. This is almost exactly the same, the same issues can clearly be drawn from this. I know it doesnt sound fair, but I've had to deal with that on all 3 occasions since my nomination failed when it was perfectly fine. Domiy (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    • To be honest, it's a bit unfair that you would use the fact that your FAC nomination was opposed as a reason to oppose this one. I suggest you reconsider this reason, and probably withdraw it. I have now dealt with your suggestions, and I hope I've now done enough to earn your support. But please, don't let the rejection of Croatia national football team become a reason for you to oppose other people's FAC nominations. – PeeJay 11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Here's an important one, and a well-written one at that. Graham gave this a great copy-edit. Let's give it a good run-through to tighten the prose even further.

  • History, Construction and early years: "Bradford won 1-0, the goal scored by Jimmy Spiers, watched by 58,000 people." I don't really like the flow of this. It feels like "in a game" could be added after the second comma.
  • Found two FA Cup links in the section. The second one can be removed.
  • Rare photo complaint from me: The Stretford end image from 1992 has a note in the description that says "use it free". To make things more confusing, this is a public domain image. Images that are restricted like this go against WP:IUP. Can an image expert be consulted for this?
  • Wartime bombing: "Such an undertaking would serve to increase the atmosphere within the ground by containing the crowd's noise within the ground and focus it onto the pitch, where the players would feel the full effects of a capacity crowd." I'd remove the second "within the ground" and make a change to "focusing", thereby fixing the tense of the sentence.
  • Conversion to all-seater: "This forced redevelopment, including the removal of the terraces at the front of the other three stands, reduced the club's capacity to an all-time low of about 44,000." Either change reduced to reducing or add which before reduced. Another tense issue.
  • Structure and facilities: "The store moved to temporary accommodation opposite the East Stand...". Perhaps "The store was temporarily moved opposite the East Stand..."
  • Repeat links for Munich air disaster and Denis Law in this section.
  • "with a few metres run-off space on each side." Should this be "of run-off space", or is this another instance of British English, which I can never figure out?
  • Future: "almost as much as has already spent on the stadium in the last fourteen years." Two things. Fourteen should be changed to 14, to match the number usage in the rest of the article. Also, has this sentence been missing something? :-) A fifty later in the section.
  • Other uses: Play-off doesn't agree with playoff from the lead. For consistency's sake, one should be adjusted.

That's it from me for the whole article. I normally don't make it through a fairly large article in one pass, which by itself tells me that the prose is FA-quality. Please handle the sourcing concerns and get the images reviewed, so I can fully support this, after handling these of course. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, dude. I'll get that image looked at ASAP. – PeeJay 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just left a note at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Image:Stretford end 1992.JPG, and the reply was that the licensing seems fine. To be honest, I don't see what's wrong with it. The uploader has decided to release the image to the public domain, and I think that their comment in the image description is just reinforcing the fact that it can now be used freely. – PeeJay 09:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing today. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC) New comments:[reply]

--Dweller (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Graham copy-edited this before, as Dweller had requested. My issues are taken care of, and the various edits since then have helped as well. Top-class article overall. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (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/Old_Trafford&oldid=1138468259"