Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anfield/archive1

Add links
Source: 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 23:25, 7 March 2008.

Anfield

Check external links

Self-nomination After a thorough peer review, I feel the article meets all the criteria necessary to be a Featured Article, this article is based on Portman Road and Priestfield Stadium, which are both Featured, so hopefully this article can join them. Thanks in advance for your time NapHit (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Addressed comments by Buc
  • Image:Anfield attendance from 1946 to 2007.png is too small to read the writing.
Well without wanting to sound pedantic, wouldn't you just click on the image and then read it?

NapHit (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you have to. Buc (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll resize but you would cilck on the image to see the whole image not a shortened one where you couldn't read the writing
  • "comprises four stands" shouldn't that be "comprises of four stands"?
done
No, the original was correct. "Comprises" is fine; "comprises of" is grammatically incorrect. See for example the Guardian style guide. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph in Structure and facilities has no refs.
done NapHit (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buc (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Entry is gained by RFID smart card rather than the traditional manned turnstile." Is this real notable. It's pretty much the norm at big football grounds nowerdays
Yes it's notable its showing the facilities on offer at Anfield, and not all stadiums employ this system NapHit (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the next 20 years" then "until 1928" saying both is redundent.
done
  • I'm guessing the ref in the forth paragraph of the History section is ment to be at the end.
done
  • Future section only talk about the new stadium not what is going to happen to Anfield.
done
  • No sourse give for ref #13.
done
  • "A couple of years" two years.
The source does not make explicit how many years it was so I cannot change this
Doesn't couple mean two? Buc (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to two NapHit (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accommodate x spectators", "seating x spectators" "capacity of x" be consistent.
  • "Original plans for a huge double decker stand were forced to be scaled down." Why?
done NapHit (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most recent being England's friendly against Uruguay in 2006." Should say "as of March 2008" before this but does this really need to be in the lead anyway
yes it's an example of other uses the stadium has had
Yes the fact englgand have played there but not the this specific match.
changed NapHit (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a mention of the Hillsborough memorial in the lead.
Seeing as it only warrants a sentence in the structure and facilities section I do not think this is necessary
done NapHit (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't the Liverpool Chairman own the stadium? Could be wrong.
No the club owns the stadium
Needs refs then
  • "Shankly in familiar pose, taking applause from adoring fans and wearing a fan's scarf around his neck" try "Shankly wearing a fan's scarf around his neck and in a familiar pose he adopted when taking applause from fans".
There is nothing wrong with the original
It's poorly worded
changed NapHit (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other uses setion listing all the fa cup and Euro 96 teams and scores seem a bit trival.
It's not trivial, as it is totally relevant to the stadium
The scores airn't really.
The scores relate to the matches played, therefore they are relevant
The score have nothing to do with Anfeild as I've already saif.
Removed NapHit (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the References are dated.
In what way are they not dated, I've given the accessdate, which is clear in the references section NapHit (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The date the report gives either at the bottem or the top of the page. They won't all have dates but if they do it should be given. Buc (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done NapHit (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when standing was permitted" I'm sure standing is still permitted. I think what you mean is they had to stand because there were no seats.
standing is not permitted, that is why it is an all-seater stadium, if it was there would still be terraces
What you not allowed to stand ever? How do you move about?
Your just being fussy now, standing refers to standing on a terrace, terraces were outlawed in the Taylor Report, therefore meaning standing is not permitted
Well this is a FAC so we need to be fussy. Needs to be explained better, I understand but someone eles might not
Clarified NapHit (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liverpool were admitted to the Football League in 1893" as this isn't directly to do with Anfield I don't think this is the best way to start a new paragraph.
If you read on, it relates to the first league match at Anfield, the sentence is fine as it is, it relates to Anfield, the order does not relly matter in my opinion
Switch it round then.
It really doesn't need switching
Yes
Improved NapHit (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that really matters to be honest, if I changed them to be the same, it would make the article bland NapHit (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
consistency if important. Buc (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
alterd NapHit (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced NapHit (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1994 after the Taylor Report" wasn't the Taylor Report in 1989?
yes, but this is referring to the development of the stadium finishing after the Taylor report
Needs to be explained
done NapHit (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The gates are a tribute to former Liverpool manager Bob Paisley" how are they?
this really does not need to be expanded,the gates being built in his honour is enough of a tribute
How are they a tribute to him?
Corrected NapHit (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buc (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest why have you changed the section in the lead relating to the new stadium there was no consensus in the peer review to replace it, and you removed it without discussing it. Also they are plans at the moment, construction has not begun yet NapHit (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose
    • All dates in the history section are month first, yet in the other sections date first. Can you revert to one style.
done NapHit (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't seem referenced enough for me, particularly large chunks of the history.
This is mainly because most of the history section comes from one source, so the whole paragraph is referenced at the end NapHit (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • News sources need the dates of the report, and book sources should cite the pages used.
cited the pages used, and added dates NapHit (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the Outline of Anfield image, need to be so detailed to included numbers? It looks like a copy off the back of the ticket, and the numbers don't mean anything to me.
I can see where you're coming from but as I don't have a image editing programme on my pc, or a free alternative there is not much I can do about it NapHit (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • visitor's centre. Is this right? One visitor?
I'm not sure what you mean by this NapHit (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it should be visitors' centre. Or maybe no apostrophe at all. But I'm sure visitor's centre is wrong - it implies there is only one man who goes to it. Peanut4 (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some poor or clumsy uses of English. I've corrected some but sure there are loads more, including
      • "Original plans for a new stadium were initiated by Liverpool to replace Anfield in May 2002."
      • "Original plans for a huge double decker stand were forced to be scaled down, due to financial constraints."
      • "Bolton Wanderers and Huddersfield Town met in 1929, with Bolton winning, they went on to win the final, becoming the first club to win a semi-final at Anfield and go on to win the FA Cup."
      • "They also won all their home games during the 1893–94 season. From January 1971 to January 1981, Liverpool did not lose a match, this encompasses 85 games, in which Liverpool scored 212 goals and conceded 35."
done I think NapHit (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The commemorative gates are mentioned in more than one section. Is this necessary?
Well the mentioning in the structure anfd facilities is just a sentence or so , i think it is alright.
    • Was Anfield used during the 1966 World Cup?
Surprisingly it was not NapHit (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aggregate attendance in the 2000-01 season was more than 1,328,482. I suspect it was 1,328,482 rather than more than, because this seems an exact figure. But if it was more than that what exactly was it?
removed more than as it was 1,328,482 NapHit (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole records section seems very dry to me. It reads like the list.
I'm not sure if I can make it less dry to be honest, it's pretty similar to the same section in Portman Road, which passed FA NapHit (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed you're correct. Ignore that comment then. If I can think of a way of making it more engaging, I'll either get back to you later or try change it myself. Peanut4 (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall I think the article needs a very good copy edit and much better referencing. Peanut4 (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple more problems.
    • "From January 1971 to January 1981, Liverpool did not lose a match at Anfield, encompassing 85 games, in which Liverpool scored 212 goals and conceded 35." Liverpool must have played more than 85 home games in ten years. It should be at least double this number.
you're right after re-checking it was from January 1978 to January 1981 NapHit (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree with Buc, the scores aren't necessary for other uses, these sentences have become terrible. "Anfield has hosted five FA Cup semi-finals, the first was in 1888 when the ground was still being used by Everton. The next semi-final was 20 years later in 1908, followed by another semi-final in 1912. The semi-final in 1921, was watched by the King and Queen. The last FA Cup semi-final at Anfield was in 1929, Bolton Wanderers won that particular match, and went on to win the FA Cup, becoming the only club to win a semi-final at Anfield and the FA Cup." Peanut4 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think I've fixed this particular problem by turning it into a sentence instead of a long-winded paragraph NapHit (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still oppose

  • Most of my points have been addressed, but I would still rather see the history section better referenced (though I do appreciate your reply above Naphit).
  • Perhaps send it for a good copy-edit from either the League of Copy Editors or from an independent editor (maybe one from WP:FOOTY). It's good, I just think it could be tweaked and made better.
  • One other point. The future section doesn't explain why Liverpool want to move away from Anfield. Peanut4 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anfield/archive1&oldid=1126593092"