Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Old Trafford

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 User:SandyGeorgia 18:12, 13 September 2008 [1].

Old Trafford

Nominator(s): –

Jay

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe the article meets the FAC criteria. First, the article covers the subject in a comprehensive manner, and the prose is written in a professional and engaging style, as well as being unbiased. All facts in the article that could be contested have been referenced using inline references. The article is also subject to no more vandalism than would be expected of an article related to one of the biggest football clubs in the world.

The article has a lead section of reasonable length, as compared to the overall length of the article, and summarises the article in a concise fashion. The table of contents contains just eight items, and the article is divided into sections of suitable length and related content. Finally, the article contains several appropriate images, all of which have correct licensing information and, in the case of non-free images, Fair Use rationales.

Please leave as many comments as you wish (although I wouldn't mind a few "Support" votes without need for changes to the article), and I will make every effort to respond to your comments as soon as possible. Thanks. –

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

^Talk 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Any reason why Old Trafford should not be a disambiguation page? =Nichalp «Talk»=

I believe that the article was moved to

Jay 08:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yup, it's fine, per

WP:PRIME --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Image comment Image:Oldtraffordaverageattendances.png needs a link to the licence or an OTRS ticket Fasach Nua (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the image with an alternative that is definitely free as I created it myself. –

Jay 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This isnt really a FA comment, but the capacity could be plotted on the graph too, I think the attendence data on its own can be slightly misleading, 30,000 people in a 31,000 stadium, in my opinion is more significant than 40,000 in an 80,000 capacity stadium. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by User:Dweller

Needs a third-party copy-edit. Some examples of things I spotted:

• OT is not "behind" Wembley
  • Reworded.
• Nor is OT "outside of football" (or inside of it for that matter)
  • Reworded.
• "However, further investment of approximately £30,000 would have been required" implies building an 80K capacity cost £0
  • Reworded.
• Lack of referencing in parag opening "Prior to the construction..."
  • Referenced.
• OR alert: sentence starting "At the ground's present capacity of 76,212,"
  • Removed. Completely missed that one myself *eep*
• "a roof was added to the United Road stand for the first time" made me realise no mention's been made of the various stands. Name them when you state they were built, and explain their names.
  • A description of each stand is included in the "Structure and facilities" section, but I have now added notes in parentheses to the first mention of each stand in order to identify them by their current names.
• "The War Commission" wassat?
  • Linked.
• Cite use of Maine Rd
  • Cited.
• Parag opening "The 1970s" is a single sentence parag. Also, it needs multiple referencing for some big claims, even if they're from same source
  • Merged into previous paragraph and referenced rise of hooliganism in the 1970s.
• Parag opening "The Old Trafford pitch" entirely unsourced
  • To be honest, it's tough to find sources for the actual structure of Old Trafford. The section about the stadium on the club's official website is utter rubbish (although I have used the Seating Plan page to cite the fact that there are four stands, and the number of tiers in each), and most other sources are blogsites, and therefore unusable.
• "megastore" or "Megastore"?
  • Fixed.

etc Sorry, cos this is a fine piece of work and not far off FA quality. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. I wonder if you wouldn't mind listing a few more complaints so that I can deal with those too. Cheers. –

Jay 14:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Won't be able to get back here before Monday at soonest, but really a third party copyedit from someone not already snowed under (ie not me) should pick up most of these irritating detractions from a first-rate article --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jameboy (talk · contribs)

Some comments around the images:

• Why are the images at the top of the article large and those near the bottom small? Should the standard "thumb" parameter not be applied, with numbers of pixels removed?
  • Done.
• "The area indicated by dotted lines is the section designated for away fans." I can't see this without clicking through to the image. Could you amend the image to shade or colour the away section?
  • Shaded the area and amended the caption to match.
• I don't find the average attendances graph very useful in its current form. Having values for every point on the graph is distracting and makes it a bit busy. Could you make the line slightly thicker? And wouldn't a red line rather than orange be more fitting (although not essential)? In this case it may also be worth expanding the image slightly for clarity, even if it meant overriding the default number of pixels of the "thumb" parameter. I'm assuming that those viewing the graph within the context of the article would merely be interested in the trend (while those interested in the detail would click through), but on my monitor at least, the trend is hard to see without putting my face near the screen due to the value labels cluttering it up. The x-axis also quite busy - could you make the x-axis labels (say) every two years instead of every year? --Jameboy (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the values for each point on the graph, thickened the trend line and changed it to red, but I haven't increased the size of the image yet, as I think it would be best to see how it looks with the modifications at the same size first. –
    Jay 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Those all look fine now, much clearer - good work. The graph seems clear enough now without further re-sizing. I'll have a proper read through when I get a chance before deciding whether to support or not. --Jameboy (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources? I read the Peer Review, and still have concerns about these.
  • http://www.englandfootballonline.com/index.html
    • This site has an extensive list of sources, the first page of which can be found here. –
      Jay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You mean you're not satisfied by nine pages of sources? –
          Jay 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • If a self-published hobby site lists reliable sources, you can go directly to those reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.munich58.co.uk/memorials/plaque/index.asp
    • If I removed this source from the article, would it make that much difference. I mean, do I really need to reference the fact that the Munich clock is in the south-east corner of the stadium? –
      Jay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Probably not, honestly. Although you never know what some folks will find controversial. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Regardless, I've found a new source now. –
          Jay 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
  • http://www.red11.org/index.html
  • http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/index1.htm
    • I'm getting really frustrated with the information that the above two references deal with. It is so difficult to find this information anywhere, so I've been reduced to using sites that might not be 100% reliable for my info. The club's official stats site could help, but it does not specifically list record lowest attendances or average attendances, so I would have to reference each season individually. –
      Jay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • • To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
          • Not necessary now that I've found a reference that is definitely reliable. –
            Jay 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
            ]
      • OK, I've referenced the appropriate seasons, but there's no comparison with other seasons/matches on the pages I've referenced. Nevertheless, this will have to do. –
        Jay 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Have those two sources been dealt with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the offending references have been replaced. –
            Jay 07:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Current ref 25 (Alfred McAlpine...) is still in all capitals.
  • Done. –
    Jay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

• "Second only to Wembley Stadium, Old Trafford has one of the largest capacities of any English football stadium at just over 76,000, and is the only UEFA 5-star rated facility in England."
  • You say its the second biggest stadium in England and then say one of the largest stadiums. Secondly I would change "over 76,000" to the exact capacity; there's no reason to be inexact in the lead and expect someone to go searching for its capacity. I would reword this sentence.
    • Out of interest, what would you suggest that I change the wording of the sentence to? I agree that the exact capacity should be used, but other than that, the wording seems fine.
      • I would suggest anything that removes one of "second only" and "one of the largest capacities", something along the lines of "With a capacity of 76,212, Old Trafford the second largest football stadium in England behind only Wembley Stadium, and is the only UEFA 5-star rated facility in England." Peanut4 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, with a slight modification, as "largest" might be construed as referring to the stadium's size, rather than its capacity. –
          Jay 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • You're very correct with that change, but my only concern with that is you use "capacity" twice in the same sentence. Peanut4 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • How about the latest revision? Seems a bit wordy to me, but it looks OK. –
              Jay 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • You're right it is a bit wordy, but otherwise everything is fine, how about "With 76,212 seats"? Peanut4 (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The problem with that is that a certain amount of the stadium's capacity is taken up by spectators in executive boxes, which may not have precisely the number of seats that each room is designed for. How about "With space for 76,212 spectators"? –
                  Jay 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • Sounds good.
• I think a source for the information on Image:Oldtraffordaverageattendances.png needs to be added.
  • Sourced on the image page.
• All my other concerns were addressed at the peer review. Peanut4 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Peanut. You've helped a lot. –
    Jay 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support All my concerns were addressed at the peer review stage, with a couple of minor other issues now brought up also fixed. Peanut4 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've made a few changes to eliminate redundancy and to tidy the prose. Please be careful not to over use expressions like this meant that, located in , as well as and also. Well done.
  ^Talk 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support - I agree whit GrahamColm. The article is good!--Andrea 93 (msg) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support my issues have bee resolved and the article is looking a lot better, now following all necessary criteria.
  • The above support is from Domiy.[2]

due to mainly POV and other issues. Please note that the word 'famous' is blatantly an issue of

• I had an article opposed and failed over the use of a stadium's picture just like you have used. Even though it had the perfectly correct tag (the same as the Old Trafford main image one) and had relevant author information, my nomination was treated against opposition for the use of possible copyright issues. This is almost exactly the same, the same issues can clearly be drawn from this. I know it doesnt sound fair, but I've had to deal with that on all 3 occasions since my nomination failed when it was perfectly fine. Domiy (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • To be honest, it's a bit unfair that you would use the fact that your FAC nomination was opposed as a reason to oppose this one. I suggest you reconsider this reason, and probably withdraw it. I have now dealt with your suggestions, and I hope I've now done enough to earn your support. But please, don't let the rejection of
    Jay 11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• History, Construction and early years: "Bradford won 1-0, the goal scored by Jimmy Spiers, watched by 58,000 people." I don't really like the flow of this. It feels like "in a game" could be added after the second comma.
• Found two FA Cup links in the section. The second one can be removed.
• Rare photo complaint from me: The Stretford end image from 1992 has a note in the description that says "use it free". To make things more confusing, this is a public domain image. Images that are restricted like this go against
  WP:IUP
  . Can an image expert be consulted for this?
  • To be honest, I'm surprised that
    Jay 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Wartime bombing: "Such an undertaking would serve to increase the atmosphere within the ground by containing the crowd's noise within the ground and focus it onto the pitch, where the players would feel the full effects of a capacity crowd." I'd remove the second "within the ground" and make a change to "focusing", thereby fixing the tense of the sentence.
• Conversion to all-seater: "This forced redevelopment, including the removal of the terraces at the front of the other three stands, reduced the club's capacity to an all-time low of about 44,000." Either change reduced to reducing or add which before reduced. Another tense issue.
  • Changing it to either "reducing" or "which reduced" would not make sense. The sentence, without the clause, should read "This forced redevelopment reduced the stadium's capacity to an all-time low of about 44,000." (And yes, I realise that I changed the word "club" for "stadium" mid-way through). –
    Jay 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Misread this. Oops. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Structure and facilities: "The store moved to temporary accommodation opposite the East Stand...". Perhaps "The store was temporarily moved opposite the East Stand..."
• Repeat links for Munich air disaster and Denis Law in this section.
• "with a few metres run-off space on each side." Should this be "of run-off space", or is this another instance of British English, which I can never figure out?
  • It is possibly an instance of British English, although it could just be me writing it the way it sounded in my head. Could "a few metres' run-off space..." be correct as well? –
    Jay 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Your usage doesn't make sense PJ, the metres don't process the run-off space. I think either would work. Without the "of" my be a bit more "proper" though. Then again, I'm no English professor. Calebrw (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either way, it now says "a few metres of run-off space". –
        Jay 07:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Future: "almost as much as has already spent on the stadium in the last fourteen years." Two things. Fourteen should be changed to 14, to match the number usage in the rest of the article. Also, has this sentence been missing something? :-) A fifty later in the section.
• Other uses: Play-off doesn't agree with playoff from the lead. For consistency's sake, one should be adjusted.

That's it from me for the whole article. I normally don't make it through a fairly large article in one pass, which by itself tells me that the prose is FA-quality. Please handle the sourcing concerns and get the images reviewed, so I can fully support this, after handling these of course. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I do believe it should be non-hyphenated: playoff, not play-offs. Just me though. Calebrw (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All instances of "play-off" have been replaced with "playoff". Furthermore, all of Giants2008's comments that I did not reply to directly above have been resolved. –
      Jay 07:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Thanks for the comments, dude. I'll get that image looked at ASAP. –

Jay 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I just left a note at

Jay 09:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note, please resolve questions about the reliability of the sources used (above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking again, AFAICT, Englandfootballonline.com is still used in the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wider community has accepted englandfootballonline.com as a reliable source, particularly given the list of its myriad sources. I will attempt to find an alternative reference, but I see no reason why the use of that site as a source should detract from this FAC nomination. –
      Jay 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I don't see the sourcing issues addressed here, I don't see explanations of why/how the source meets
        WP:RSN, or the sources cited in the hobby site could be used to cite our article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • No matter, I've replaced the references in question now. Please feel free to pass the article at any time. Is it still the case that four unopposed supports are enough to pass an article? –
          Jay 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]

• Support following resolution of comments on article talk and on this page. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing today. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC) New comments:[reply]

• "It is also commonly referred to as "K Stand"" Why?
  • Explained in the article, though I'll bet it could do with a reference. –
    Jay 10:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

--Dweller (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Status on Dweller's oppose ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Graham copy-edited this before, as Dweller had requested. My issues are taken care of, and the various edits since then have helped as well. Top-class article overall. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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