Wikipedia:Peer review/Apogee Stadium/archive1

Apogee Stadium

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made substantial additions in the last few weeks and I'd very much like to have a second (or third) opinion. Any constructive suggestions are welcome, but I'm especially looking for:

• Suggestions regarding the structure of the article
• Additional information that should or could be included. That said, since the stadium is very new, information resources are somewhat limited. I have looked at a number of featured articles for stadiums and fields, and I admire the level of detail in those, but that kind of detail isn't available yet for this venue.
• International appeal. Can someone from outside the United States (perhaps unfamiliar with the silliness we call "football") follow the article easily?

Thanks, Runfellow (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• "lost 48 to 23 against": Use an en dash here (–) to report the score. That appears to be standard across sports articles.

• "It also utilizes": "uses" is better here.

• "newly-built" doesn't need a hyphen, since "newly" is an adverb.

• It's not entirely clear to me why the 2002 fee referendum is relevant to funding for the stadium. Was this necessary to finance the stadium?

• " the Mean Green lost 48 to 23": Same as with the score above.

• "Apogee Stadium utilizes various forms": "uses" instead of "utilizes"

• This caption needs a period since it's a complete sentence: "A member of the UNT Talons, a school spirit group, fires Boomer the Cannon behind the south end zone"

• The prose is generally very good.

• As for your question about the article's structure, I don't see any issues with it. It flows in a logical way, I think.

• I can't think of any additional information that's essential. Highlights from the team's performances in the stadium might be appropriate at some point, but it's so new that there's clearly not a lot of material to work with.

• I doubt this will be very confusing to people who aren't familiar with football. You could put "American football" in the lead, perhaps: "college American football stadium". But that reads somewhat awkwardly. There isn't likely to be much confusion here, since it focuses on the stadium (as it should) and not the intricacies of play.--Batard0 (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I've made most of the changes you've suggested here. Regarding utilizes vs. uses, I thought that since utilize often means using something for an unintended purpose, and since this kind of environmental technology is not typically used for stadiums, it might be appropriate. But I'll toss it around and will probably change it in a day or two, just need to think about a better possible way to phrase it. Runfellow (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The proper use for "utilize" is in medical contexts, i.e. "your body utilizes Vitamin C for digestion" (not true, just for illustration's sake). In other contexts like this one it's an unnecessarily long substitute for "use". "Utilize" is three syllables; "use" is one.--Batard0 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what tells you the word is only used in medical contexts? Neither the Chicago Manual of Style, the Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam-Webster mention such a specification. I would typically use "use", but since the stadium makes unconventional (or the best possible) use of environmental technology, it is more specific (and thus more appropriate) than "use", regardless of its size. Runfellow (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Arsenikk ^(talk)

• From an international perspective: nowhere does the article mention that it is in the US.
• I know nothing about American football and I had no problems understanding the article. From a European perspective the "oddity" in the article is more related to athletics fees, which I was not even aware of existed before reading the article.
• Does that sum up all the funding for the venue?
• Although there is nothing as such wrong with the content in the oopening season section, the section header will cause problems; should there be similar section for each season?
• Link Dallas Business Journal
• A shame there isn't an image of the inside of the bowl
• The article's structure is good. It varies widely how much information is available on the facilities of a given stadium, some have a lot and some have little. The article should reflect the sources, and no higher demands than that will be set, even at FA.
• I havn't done an image review or controlled the sources, and I have mostly been focusing on content rather than prose, but I would say that this article should meet the good article criteria.

Overall most impressive. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)