Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/York Park/archive4

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 Karanacs 20:14, 16 December 2009 [1].

York Park

Nominator(s): Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it now meets the criteria. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per last time, and Brianboulton has given it another copyedit, 1a being the main complaint the last time YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 05:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with a one comment. I cannot find any piece of information, of significance, that is missing. The article is readable and, for me, flows well. Images are good, correctly licensed and seem to have appropriate alt text. (though the map could do with a scale measurement). The text meets my idea of 1a - Peripitus (Talk) 07:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about the size quoted for the field of 175x145m ? . According to the [ http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/venues/tabid/4837/default.aspx Hawks website] its 135x165m though if this is before or after the 13m width reduction I cannot tell. though the AFL site agrees with the article. Whom is correct ?

Thanks, I'd go with the AFL article and I've seen that figure before. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Highly readable despite featuring a strange Oz game. Was there any motive to the arson attack, or just the usual mindless vandalism? (no need to respond to that, just wondered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, just a random attack. In a funny way it was perhaps a good thing as Hawthorn has attempted to get rid of the stand for a while. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 19:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aaroncrick has done a fine job and Brianboulton's copy edit should seal the deal. I went through just to see if I could jump in the action, but I can't find any flaws. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Brian did a fine job copy-editing the prose. Found a couple of little fixes that I made myself, because this is now a great article and I didn't want to wait before offering my support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 2c review at talk: Fifelfoo (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not there? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I made the link first: A couple of missing author names and wire bylines. ABC needs consistency in presentation / use of subdivision names. Two cites are missing work names (rather important in newspaper articles). [In box, upper left] would make a decent dummy name for those shout out non-article boxes if required for the front pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please ensure that all quotations have a citation immediately after the sentence in which they appear. This may mean that a citation is duplicated at the ends of subsequent sentences. There is some ambiguity in the article currently, where there is a quote in a sentence, but no citation, and the next sentence has 2 citations. Which one is the quote from? Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Also, shouldn't The Age and The Australian be italicized as they are newspapers/magazines? Karanacs (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should be. I've manually done them all. Just removed the manual italics and it's now in italics :S Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 19:48, 16 December 2009 (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 {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 16 December 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.