Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bootham Crescent/archive1

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2015 [1].

Bootham Crescent

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bootham Crescent has been the home ground of York City Football Club since 1932, and is expected to be knocked down in two years time, when the club moves to an out-of-town multi-purpose stadium. The article has held GA status since January 2008, and forms part of the York City F.C. featured topic. I have worked on getting the article up to the required standard, and believe it now meets the criteria. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parutakupiu

Good read (particularly the history section), well sourced and well pictured. Here are my suggestions/concerns/doubts:

In the infobox, it would be helpful to provide the match and date when the record attendance was set, for imediate information.
- Added the opponent, competition and date. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try to avoid very short sentences if it is possible to merge them with the ones surrounding it. For instance, "The ground has a capacity of 7,872 and is located near the centre of the city..."
- Have had a go at merging a few sentences. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Bootham Crescent hosted football in the Football League from 1932 to 2004, when York were relegated into the Conference National, and since 2012 after York were promoted back into the Football League ~~in 2012~~."
- Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove wikilinks to common nouns such as "directors", "pitch", "manager", "chairman", "dressing rooms", "managing director", "first-team"
- Removed the wikilinks suggested above, and those to "referee", "linesmen", "turnstile" and "groundsman". Replaced the wikilink to manager with the more specific List of York City F.C. managers. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to place an inline citation for the same source in consecutive sentences, only in the last one (if the next one is different).
- I try to be as explicit as I can when referencing, so I prefer to cite each sentence. There's a passage from a user-written essay on writing featured articles that I agree with on this: "One citation for each sentence! In this way you'll avoid the annoying [citation needed], you'll impress and you'll convince everybody about the high level of your research". Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The ground's one major drawback..." Is the presence of "one" here correct? Not a native speaker but it sounds odd.
- I don't think it's grammatically incorrect, but reading it over it seems redundant, so I've removed it. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would close the article with the "Future" section. In addition – and totally optional – I would try to incorporate the "Transport" section (not so big) into the "Structure and facilities" (with creation of sub-sections, if adequate).
- Placed Future as the bottom section, and moved Transport to below Structure and facilities. I've not merged them, as I feel they're too distinct to be part of the same section. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Parutakupiu (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Good luck with getting the whole topic featured. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support My issues dealt with at peer review. A good read and nice to see such quality work about a lower league team. Particularly impressed by the lack of recentism in the history section. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments :

There is a slight confusion at the beginning of the article. The first paragraph of the lead begins: "Bootham Crescent is an association football ground located in York..." etc. The second paragraph begins: "York City took Bootham Crescent on lease from York Cricket Club..." That sounds as if York City leased a football ground from the cricket club, when in fact it leased land, on which it then built its stadium. I recommend that you slightly amend the beginning of the second paragraph as follows: "York City leased land at Bootham Crescent from York Cricket Club, as a replacement for thir ground at Fulfordgate, which was located on the outskirts of the city." You will probably need to make similar adjustments within the body of the article.
- Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The club took a 21-year lease in 1932, which takes us to 1953. But we hear no more of the lease until 2002, when we learn that the lease was extended until 2004. What about the intervening extensions?
- It is stated in the second paragraph of the second section in History that "It was announced at the shareholders' annual meeting in September 1948 that York had purchased Bootham Crescent for £4,075". I felt this passage was sufficient in informing readers that the lease had ended. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by some of the detail in the "Recent history" section: "...the club proceeded with plans to move to Huntington Stadium.[30] After months of negotiations the club bought the ground in February 2004, after securing a £2 million loan from the Football Stadia Improvement Fund (FSIF)." But then we hear no more of this new ground until the very end of the article, when the move is still apparently pending. What happened? Has York City owned two grounds for the past 12 years or so?
- Clarified that the club bought Bootham Crescent, not Huntington Stadium, which was implied by the previous wording. D'oh! Mattythewhite (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed a tendency towards verbosity on occasions, e.g. "The move to Bootham Crescent was voted on, and the decision to take the ground on a 21-year lease was approved by 115 votes to 37" which could easily be shortened to "The move to Bootham Crescent on a 21-year lease was approved by 115 votes to 37." There may well be other opportunities to tidy the prose.
- Reworded as suggested. Will reread for unnecessary text. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These points are the result of a fairly quick prose scan rather than a detailed read-through, for which I have not yet found time. I will continue when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The only comment I have is the Future section which starts off with "the terms of the FSIF loan" but you have to go searching for the details of this loan and what FSIF means. It seems as though this section is out of place and there is no flow from what should precede it. Keith D (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved Future to the bottom after considering Parutakupiu's point on section ordering. It could be argued that Future is essentially a continuation of History, so maybe it should come directly afterwards? What do you think, @Keith D: and @Parutakupiu:? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess Keith D has a point. Maybe it does fit better as a follow-up; just not entirely sure if as a section per se or nested within History. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - May be at the end of the history section would be appropriate, as it will become history in a year when the new ground is opened, that would also allow a flow from the details of the loan to this section. Keith D (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Future moved to directly after History. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a couple of things from me, since this looks to be in pretty good shape already.

Further improvements and a new stand: "The half-time scoreboard at the Shipton Street End ceased to be used in 1965, but remained as advertising hoarding." "hoarding" → "boarding"? Or is that a word used in Britain. Us Americans don't always recognize these at first glance.
- Retains the same meaning and is probably a more widely recognised term. Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other uses: "the FA XI included former 1966 World Cup winners Bobby Charlton and Nobby Stiles." Is it appropriate to say they were "former" 1966 World Cup champions since they'll never lose that recognitition. It would make more sense if it started with "former England international players" or something similar. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded to "the FA XI included former England internationals and 1966 World Cup winners Bobby Charlton and Nobby Stiles". Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support – With these fixes and the others above, I'm confident that this article now meets the FA criteria. Good work. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Apologies for getting back to you late...

No dead links, but ref 54 doesn't seem to work for me. Internal server error?
- This one? Works fine for me. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't Ref 5, 8, 11, 12 have access dates given the template includes URLs?
- Access dates added. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with close paraphrasing having selected a few random sources with links (Ref 29, 31, 33, 35, 47, 70, 71, 74).
Be consistent with publication title for York Evening Press. Compare Ref 35 with 40 for instance. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For historical accuracy, I've gone with what the newspaper was called at the time the articles were published. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness and prose, FWIW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Suggest renaming sect Recent history to 1990s to present or something like that, so it's less likely to be dated. Two-sentence-long paragraphs in the first and 4th paragraphs of the lede intro sect, could either be expanded or have some info moved around to have more of a balance in flow for that sect. Otherwise quite comprehensive, that's about all that's holding me back from switching. — Cirt (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Section heading reworded as suggested.
- Lead expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for being so quick and responsive to my comments, — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've had a copy-editing hack through the lead, but the rest of the article looks very well done indeed. Great job Mattythewhite. I'm happy to support this promotion (though I certainly did not support York's promotion a few years ago. Grumble grumble). Cheers and well done again! :) — Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note Although there has not been a formal image review, I see no issues. I will be closing this nomination in a few moments. Graham Beards (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.