Talk:Prenton Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 22:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't put flagicons in infoboxes. (fixed)
• A given stand is a proper noun, thus the stand's name is capitalized, including "stand", which is part of the name (e.g. Main Stand).

 Done U+003F^? 09:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• The history section seems a bit short, although I am aware that sources are sometimes hard to find for this sort of things. Would there for instance be any newspaper archives available (I'm thinking online searchable) which would have news items about the reconstruction of the stadium? More details, such as construction time and costs, would be nice. Of course, if this isn't available, then what is here now is fine.

I'm not confident about finding online newspaper sources, but I should be able to squeeze a bit more info out of the couple of books I have. U+003F^? 09:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I found a few more details to add to the History section. How does it look? U+003F^? 00:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• The infobox mentions the Liverpool F.C. Reserves play at Prenton Park, but I cannot see any mention of this in the prose

I'm not sure it merits a mention in the main text. I added a ref in the infobox – is that enough? U+003F^? 09:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a mention in the prose, first of all because it is a notable use of of the venue, and secondly because it is irritating for readers to see the team listed in the infobox but no mention of when in the prose. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Upon further thought, I agree. Liverpool's playing at the ground is it's primary other role. U+003F^? 22:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• The asin link for Bishop's book is dead (this could be an inherent template fault, not an erroneous id #). I would also be nice to have the page numbers from the book.

 Done Good spot: the ASIN linked to amazon.com rather than amazon.co.uk U+003F^? 09:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Overall well-written; it seems a bit short, but there may not be more to write, in which case it is okay. Placing on hold until the above has been seen to. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

All looks good, so I will pass the article. Congratulations! Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)