Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/York Park/archive3

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 not promoted by Karanacs 18:00, 24 November 2009 [1].

York Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because after another peer review (From Brianboulton), the article meets the FA criteria. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Looks excellent. ceranthor 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hawthorn Football Club has played between two and five AFL matches a season since 2001, and the St Kilda Football Club played two games a year between 2003 to 2006. - bit informal to say a season, perhaps each season?
  • Support The last FAC took care of most of the technical issues and that last clean up on attendance was easy enough. I switched one March into "03" in a ref. The copy editing was done and this really is a great presentation to the reader. I do have a few personal issues with the article but none of these contradict the MOS (unfortunately for my personal taste) so these are simply things to consider:
  • I still think "Structures and facilities" deserves to be above "Events". The article is about the building and those events taking place (as cool as they might be) should take a back seat.
  • I agree, had it like that but was requested to be changed.
  • I think the "Gunns Stand during Hawthorn vs Brisbane AFL match in 2009" image could use a clear tag to force the subsection header ("Other uses") below it.
  • I don't like 3 column reference lists
As a fellow editor who likes buildings around grass where guys run around and sometimes hit each other I have to say that Aaroncrick has done a fantastic job. However, in the spirit of sport and since we have critiqued eachothers' work: We have better beer in Seattle!Cptnono (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I peer-reviewed this on 3 November, and was a bit surprised to find it here at FAC a day later, before I had had a chance to look at the responses to the points I raised at peer review. Not all the points I raised have been addressed. For example, in the lead: "Between 2003 to 2006" should be "and", not "to". This is marked "done" in the review, but clearly is not done. I asked for some explanation of "John Orchard", who appears in the History section. If the source doesn't specify who he was, he should be introduced as "a contemporary observer, named as John Orchard...", not just as "John Orchard". There is also a superfluous comma after his name. The sentence beginning "The stadium's sirens have since been replaced, and the ones will be put on display..." still doesn't specify "the ones". I've also noticed things I didn't note at the peer review; Hawthorn and Richmond Football Clubs should be linked at first mention, not second. These things, and there may well be others, make me feel that the nomination here was rushed. I don't think the article meets criterion 1(a) at the moment, and recommend that a non-involved editor gives it a full read-through and copyedit before it is considered for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sorry, but I have to oppose this. My comment above, posted a few days ago, made it clear that I thought the article had been nominated at FAC too hurriedly after my initial peer review, and that the prose needed a thorough going over. This has not happened. I have been through the lead and the History section myself, and have found plenty that needs fixing. Mostly they are not major points in themeselves, but cumulatively they spoil the prose quality of the article. They must be addressed and/or fixed. I don't have time to go through the remaining sections, but someone needs to.

  • Lead
    • "The area was originally swampland before becoming Launceston's showgrounds in 1873. Work started on transforming the area into a sports venue in 1919 and was completed within two years." These statements are inconsistent with what's written in the history section, which records that the area had been used for sports for many years before 1919; a bowling green, tennis courts and a "main oval" were apparently in use in 1910. And it doesn't seem that work on the new venue was completed within two years, when we read that the main grandstand wasn't completed until May 1923.
      • You have not addressed the inconsistencies in the above statements as against the History section. A sentence is required after "...in 1873" to explain that the showgrounds were increasingly used for sports purposes and facilities for bowls and tennis were introduced. Then "In 1919 work started on transforming..." etc. The lead still says that the work was completed in two years when it obviously wasn't. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As previously mentioned, Hawthorn and Richmond football clubs should be linked at first, not second mentions
  • History
    • "...taken over by the council..." What council?
    • "Even though cricketers were in 'full praise' of the ground, footballers (Australian Rules) were unable to use the facility as winter rain caused it to become waterlogged." The sentence is not very elegant ("full praise" and a parenthetical insert), but is not logical, either. The facts (1) that cricketers praised the ground and (2) that it became waterlogged in winter, are separate and unrelated; an "Even though" is inappropriate. Suggest amend to "Cricketers were full of praise for the ground, but because winter rain caused it to become waterlogged, footballers (Australian Rules) were unable to use the facility." - and perhaps that should be "often unable" since I doubt it was waterlogged for the whole season. It might be worth saying, later on, how this became "the best rainwater ground in Australia."

Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 04:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Consequently rebuilt" should be "subsequently rebuilt"
    • Irrelevant detail: "The floods also delayed the start of the Northern Tasmanian Football Association (NTFA) season by a week" (nothing to do with the subject of the article).
    • Contractions such as "who'd" should be avoided.
    • A punctuation check is required throughout. For example, commas are required after "Alderman Storrer" and "Alderman Salder" (there may well be others)
    • "a council publication," - again, what council? The lengthy quote from this publication has way too much detail and should be cut.
    • What is a "suburban-style" sports ground. Is this an official classification or just someone's description? What does it actually mean?
    • "Before the 1998 federal election, the local member of parliament (MP) representing the Division of Bass, Warwick Smith—a minister from the ruling Liberal Party—promised to fund the re-development of York Park if he was re-elected. Although Smith lost his seat, the Liberals retained power and kept the promise." As written, this reads like political bribery and corruption. I assume that the promise was for public, not personal funding, and I doubt that he actually made his reelection a condition. So it may be advisable to reword the final part of the sentence: "promised funding for the re-development of York Park. Although Smith lost his seat, the Liberals retained power and kept the promise."
    • "a deliberately lit fire..." Very clumsy, suggest "a deliberate fire"
    • "heritage-listed" requires link or explanation
    • "There has been a $7 million proposal..." Too vague, give a date for the proposal.

I will be more than happy to review my oppose when the above points have been addressed and when a copyedit of the final sections is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have addressed some of my concerns; those remaining are unstruck, above. It does not seem, however, that you have acted on my suggestion that the second part of the article should have a thorough copyedit. A very quick run-through reveals the following samples of things which need attention. I stress these are samples - the matter won't be resolved by merely fixing these.
  • "The ground also hosted occasional Tasmanian home games in the Victorian Football League from 2001 until their demise in 2008." - "their" needs specifying.
  • Is the so-called "siren controversy" really worth a paragraph to itself? It doesn't seem enough of an event to warrant this much space in an article about the ground.
  • "In 2007, a five-year $16.4 million sponsorship agreement began to make the state government Hawthorn's primary sponsor." I queried this sentence at peer review, particular the "began to make" rather than "made". However, this is about sponsorship for the club, not the ground, so why is it relevant to this article?
  • "...an Ike & Tina Turner concert as well as a Billy Graham religious revival meeting". "As well as" implies a connection between the two events. Replace with a simple "and"
  • "The stand has two corporate box areas, the Gunns Function Centre and the Corporate Function Centre.[39] Immediately north of the Stand is the Aurora Function Centre, which houses coaches' boxes along with a function centre." Surely a less clunky way can be used to convey this information, which mentions "function centre" four times.
  • "York Park has often been criticised for its large playing surface, which is blamed for producing low-scoring football, which is regarded as unattractive." You shouldn't have "which is" twice in a single sentence. And you should say by whom low-scoring football is "regarded as unattractive"

As I am away for five days from Sunday I had hoped to be able to strike my oppose before leaving, but this is not possible. I see you have several supports, and if the FA delegate decides that my concerns are insufficient to keep thia FAC open, then so be it. But if it is still open when I return I should have the time to do the copyediting work myself if no one else has stepped forward. Please be assured that my aim is to get the article right, not to find fault. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Reviewed a good chunk of this at the last FAC. I'll be leading off this review in Events, where I left off last time.

  • "with a record sttendance of 20,971 for the match between Hawthorn and Richmond". Typo.
  • "The stadium's sirens have since been replaced, and the old ones will be put on display at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery." I see that the source is from last year. Is there any indication that this has already happened?
  • Other uses: "The Crusty Demons performed at the stadium during 2006 and March 2008." Can we get a more precise date for their 2006 performance(s)?
  • Structures and facilities: "an extension in 2005 to 5,700. The 5,700 capacity stand...". The capacity figure doesn't need to be repeated two words after it was originally given.
  • "because it is regarded as the home of Australian Rules Football in Tasmania." If Rules and Football are not proper nouns (not sure whether they are or not), they should be de-capitalized.
  • Record crowds: Link Challenge Cup, assuming there isn't a previous link that I missed.
  • Comment The sentence in the intro about becoming the Football hall of fame is in the wrong place. It either needs to be in the paragraph about football and thus linked by subject matter, or else it needs to be last (chronologically) within the paragraph that it is currently in. Amandajm (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Let me explain again.
1. This sentence is in a paragraph which is chronological, all except for one sentence. So move the sentence to the end of the paragraph, then all the sentences will be chronological. OK?
2. If you don't want to do that, there is another way to fix it. Move it up, and then it will be the last sentence of the paragraph above it. That sentence is about football. So then, this sentence about football will be in the paragraph about footbal. OK?
You have a choice, both ways to fix it are good, but right now it is in the wrong place. Amandajm (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — sorry but the prose is not up to FA standard, some examples include:

  • "York Park is a sports ground located in the Inveresk and York Park Precinct" - located is redundant.
  • "the most of any stadia in Tasmania" - how about "more than any other stadium in.."?
  • "The area was originally swampland before becoming Launceston's showgrounds in 1873" – originally is redundant.
  • "on a regular basis" – more redundancy, how about often or even regularly?
  • "Also" is often redundant; there are three occurrences, close together, in the Lead. I think this interesting article needs a little more work on the prose before promotion can be considered. This should not take a good copy-editor more than an hour or so. But, unfortunately, it is not ready yet. My advice is to wait for Brian Boulton, who has kindly offered to work on this after his short break. Graham Colm Talk 00:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I agree the prose isn't there yet.

  • Thanks. I don't agree with Brian on this, and have asked him if he'll comment. A deliberate fire sounds to me as though the fire is being given a personality trait or is showing intentionality. However, it is also possible that "deliberately lit" is an Australianism that comes naturally to me but reads oddly to an editor from another country. Brian may comment when he comes back from a break. In any case, my other comments below are more significant than this one. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A deliberate fire" is OK as a bit of prose shorthand, in the way you might say "a deliberate kick" etc, but to save argument and/or exchanges of various awkwardish wordings, why not call it "an arson attack"? Brianboulton (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ground also hosted occasional Tasmanian home games in the Victorian Football League from 2001 until the team's demise in 2008". Which team??

* "York Park has often been criticised for its large playing surface, which is blamed for producing low-scoring football, which is regarded as unattractive." This needs at least one citation. Also needs a copyedit - two clauses beginning "..., which".

  • In fact, this sentence has another problem. Now I re-read it, i don't know what is meant by "the corresponding match" either. Perhaps talk about there being something repeated each year, and then have a report on attendance as a stand-alone sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I'm back from my short break and over the next couple of days will give this article a full copyedit. That won't make the prose perfect, of course, but should improve it. Meanwhile, I have raised a number of concerns that are not copyedit issues, which remain unresolved. Here is a summary:-

  • In the lead, a sentence or phrase is required after "...in 1873" to explain that the showgrounds became increasingly used for sports purposes and facilities for bowls and tennis were introduced. Then "In 1919 work started on transforming..." etc.
  • The lead still says that the work was "completed" in the two years after 1919, when the text of the articles tells a different story.
  • The "best rainwater" statement is apparently wrong
  • You need to be much more precise than: "Four years later, the southern stand (demolished in 2004) was completed, leading to a 'building spree'." What was the nature of this building activity, how long did it go on for, what resulted from it.
    • Cheeck my sources in a few hours for clarification. 02:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The term "suburban style" as a description for a sports ground needs explaining
  • I repeat my belief that the "siren story" is scarecely worth the space given to it, since this is an article about a sports ground, not a club history. I'd say a passing mention would be enough.
  • Likewise, as worded it seems that the five-year $16.4 million sponsorship was for the Hawthorn Club, not for the ground. Unless this money was devoted in some way to the development of the ground, the sponsorship is not relevant to the article.

Please give me some feedback on these before I start polishing the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2009 (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/York_Park/archive3&oldid=1136094599"