Talk:Emirates Stadium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes

• No dab.[1]
• A few dead links.[2]
• Ran the dash script to clean those up.
• Multiple uses of currently. This may be redundant and not precise enough. Not terrible but wanted to mention it. WP:DATED
• Lead does does not function as proper summary of the article. More info is needed and it will more than likely need to be split into multiple paragraphs. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." - WP:LEAD
• No non-breaking spaces -   between numbers and their units of measurement. This needs to be addressed
• Stadium section
  • Consider renaming this to "Layout", "Design", or something similar.
  • I like the first paragraph naming the organizations behind its design and construction. The detail on the seating sections is also good.
  • 105 × 68 metres should have a conversion. Multiple instances throughout. MOS:CONVERSIONS
  • The paragraph starting "The upper tier is contoured to leave open space in the corners of the ground..." is sourceless.
  • VAT might need to be spelt out.
• Name
  • Should m be capped to M for million? MOS:CURRENCY
• History
  • I personally am not a fan of the structure of this section with its subsections. That is purely my own preference, though.
  • The "The need for a new stadium" section is short on refs. Are those in the following paragraphs? Same with the section "Ashburton Grove chosen"
  • "The club has announced that all of the hospitality boxes have been taken," needs to have its tense updated
  • The construction subsection needs more refs it looks like.
  • The "Milestones" subsection has a few issues.
    • Citation needed tag
    • Some milestones without refs
    • Would this be better laid out in prose instead of in a list form? I could see the usefulness for a list but not sure. I think that th "'Arsenalisation'" subsection a couple down would most certainly be better as prose. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)#Lists versus prose
• The "Pitch" section is very short. This is an important aspect of any stadium and more info should be available in sources.
• The "Other uses" section would be better in more than one paragraph.
• The "Attendances" section might be better wrapped into the history section or even milestones. I do like the idea of such info being presented though. Some editors might say that it borders on indiscriminate listing but I would disagree.
• Nice work making sure that financial stuff is in. It might be better moved up since it flows from design and similar issues to games and then back to information that is not event related.
• "Access" or "Transportation" is common in the better stadium articles. Nice work.
  • "£7.6 million" is used but an abbreviation was used in a previous section.
• Refs
  • There might be an over use of primary sources. I would not fail based on this but could see it hitting resistance from other editors.
  • Numerous MoS concerns:
    • Make sure that all of the dates are in the same format. Example: #2..."February 16, 2008. Retrieved 19 December 2007."
    • Make sure that italicization is done properly and consistently. Example: #3..."Arsenal.com" vs. #10:..."Arsenal.com"
    • Several bare URLs.
    • Other random ones: "may" not capped for 17, The Gaurdian bolded for 34, no info for 46 and so on.
• There are some good images. Ed g2s are great. Looks like all licensing checks out. Not sure if "Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2010." is applicable for the map but look into it.[3]

Pass/Fail

I am considering failing this since I believe that the concerns cannot be addressed in a sufficiently short amount of time. However, I will keep this open for a few days. There are some great aspects of this article with some good info, images, and possibly a base for an easy renommination if it fails at this time. I need to stress that although I think this is likely to fail a this time, I did enjoy reading the article and think you have done some awesome work.

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

• Fail. The prose is good enough for the most part when it comes to grammar. I am less strict on this but a review at FA would run into some roadblocks. The "Other uses" section is too choppy. The general section layout is too random and does not flow easily enough.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

• Fail. Multiple issues raised above. Along with more mundane issues, the lists vs prose issue is a highlight.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Fail

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and

• Fail. Not based on contentious info but simply on not enough sources. The overuse of a the primary source is also a possible concern.

(c) it contains no original research.

• Pass(?). I believe the info not sourced is available in sources somewhere but the editors failed to provide sources.

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and

• Fail due to the short pitch section.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]

• Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5]

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

• Pass

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Pass

Follow up: Although there are some good aspects of the article, I cannot pass it at this time. Significant amount of work still needed. Please feel free to shot me a message if you want to renominate it and I will gladly review it again. Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)