Wikipedia:Peer review/Old Trafford/archive2

Old Trafford[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is now very close to reaching Featured Article status and I'd just like some last pointers before taking it to WP:FLC. All of the points from the previous PR and GA Review that I felt needed addressing have been taken into account, so there shouldn't be much that needs commenting on, but any help you guys can give would be awesome.

Thanks. – Pee Jay 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Lead

Football isn't wikilinked anywhere. I would actually suggest saying in the first line "is an all-seater football stadium in the Trafford borough of Greater Manchester, England." and wikilink football there. I realise football isn't the stadium's only use, but is certainly its vast majority use.
- Done

History

"Therefore, following the club's rescue from near-bankruptcy and renaming, the new chairman decided" Do you know the chairman's name?
- Done
"However, further investment to the tune of about £30,000 would have been required," I'm not sure "to the tune of" is quite formal. I may be wrong though.
- Y Changed to "further investment of approximately £30,000..."
"The first of these was the 1911 FA Cup Final Replay" replay doesn't need to be capped.
- Done
"as 70,504 spectators watched the Red Devils lose 3–1 Aston Villa." Should that be "lose 3–1 to Aston Villa"?
- Done
Wasn't there a period of time during the redevelopments that there was no space for visiting supporters? Is it worth adding in?
- I can't remember such a period. Do you have a ref?
  - Unfortunately not. I'm working a little off memory. I seem to remember a game against Liverpool, maybe even when Cantona made his return (?) which was either the final game before away supporters returned or the first game they did. Peanut4 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"However, from 2003 to 2007, when Wembley Stadium was completed and England began to play their home games there again, Old Trafford hosted 12 of England's 23 home matches, more than any other stadium." I think this looks ambiguous about the re-opening of Wembley.
- Y I've removed the bit that says "when Wembley Stadium was completed and England began to play their home games there again".
"The facility will next host the preliminary matches of the 2012 Summer Olympics." Do you have a ref?
- Y Removed.

Structure

"The Museum was opened" museum doesn't need to be capped since this isn't the full name.
- Done
"Members of the media are seated in the middle of the Upper South Stand to give them the best view of the match." Do you have a ref, or is it covered by ref 9 at the end of the next sentence?
- No, I actually don't have a ref for that statement. I can provide a ref that says that clubs have to provide members of the media with seats with a good view of the match, but, despite it being true, I've not been able to find anything about the media being located in the Upper South Stand.
  - The bit that needs referencing really is "best view of the match" more than anything else. Peanut4 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Traditionally, the stand is where the hard-core United fans are located, and also the ones who make the most noise." Needs a ref.
- I've added a ref that I think is appropriate.
"The shop then gradually moved along the length of the South Stand," I suggest changing gradually moved as literally it implies the shop moved very slowly of its own accord. Or maybe I'm being very picky.
- Y Changed to "The shop was then moved..." to imply it moving passively rather than actively of its own accord.
"Alex Ferguson often requests that the pitch be relaid,[29][30] most notably half way through the 1998–99 season," Why most notably in 98-99? And do you have a reference? I'd also suggest wikilinking and maybe describing Alex Ferguson for those somehow getting this far and not knowing who he is.
- Done

Future

"Ideally, the expansion would include bringing the South Stand up to at least two tiers and filling in the South-West and South-East quadrants to restore the "bowl" effect of the stadium." Ideally seems POV.
- Done

Other uses

"Old Trafford has been used for various purposes other than football since its construction. Before the construction of the Old Trafford football stadium," construction x2.
- Y Changed the first "construction" to "since it was first built".
"During the First World War, the stadium was used by American soldiers for games of baseball and, in 1981, matches of cricket's Lambert & Butler Cup were held there." Wikilink baseball and cricket.
- Done

Transport

Anything about buses or park & ride schemes?
- Y Added info about bus service from Manchester Piccadilly and reffed, but I couldn't find anything about Park & Ride schemes.

General

The first three football club names, Manchester United F.C., Newton Heath F.C. and Liverpool F.C. all use F.C. None of the rest do. Any reason?
- No reason, I just thought it read better to have the F.C. in there. I've piped the links now.
Per new policy, I don't think all dates need to be wikilinked.
- Would it be a bad thing if I said it's just too much work for me to do now?
  - I suspect it may be brought up at FAC. I suppose it doesn't need doing until you take it there though. Peanut4 (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ensure all numerals and their respective unit are broken by a non-breaking space per WP:MOSNUM.
- Y I've done all of the ones that need doing, I think, and they're all done with the {{convert}} template, so the non-breaking space is automatically in there.

Hope this helps. Peanut4 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helped a lot, cheers mate. – Pee Jay 06:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.
  - I don't understand what you are referring to here. Can you provide some examples so that I know what I'm looking to correct?
    - The one I was referring to is current ref 25 where "ALFRED MCALPINE..." (the link to the website source) is in all capitals. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fixed. – Pee Jay 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.
  - Again, I don't know which particular examples you are referring to here, so I don't know what I should be changing.
    - Current ref 2 (Stadia list) has UEFA listed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aha, I see. I've fixed that one now. – Pee Jay 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes the following sources reliable?
  - http://www.stadiumguide.com/index.htm
    - I have removed the references to this site and replaced it with a published book citation and a seemingly more reliable site about skyscrapers.
  - http://pictures.footymad.net/upload/247/284217-1.pdf
    - This is a mirror for an official UEFA document that is no longer hosted at UEFA's website.
  - http://www.manutdzone.com/index.html
    - This site was used as a reference for the recently-published "The Official Manchester United Almanac" by John White (ISBN 978-0-7528-9192-7), and I'm sure it has been used for other published works too.
  - http://www.englandfootballonline.com/index.html
    - This is one of the most trusted sites on the internet for statistics regarding the England national football team.
      - WHY is it trusted though? To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is a link to the site's list of sources, which, as you can see, is quite extensive: Click here – Pee Jay 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://www.munich58.co.uk/memorials/plaque/index.asp
    - This is one of the more trivial citations in the article, as the statement it references is not particularly contentious. The reliability of this particular source is not particularly important, IMO.
  - http://www.red11.org/index.html
    - Despite not having been updated in a while, the majority of the statistics on this site can be cross-referenced to other sources. The convenience is that this site collates the info in one easy-to-reference location.
  - http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/index1.htm
    - Info contained on this site can easily be confirmed by other sources, but the fact that it's all in one place makes it easier to reference this site.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied above. – Pee Jay 00:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]