Talk:York Community Stadium/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: The Almightey Drill (talk · contribs) 21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattythewhite! I can see you are looking for the GA for this so it can be a part of your Featured Topic on the Minstermen (such a shame that things aren't going too well for this season, but after the weather events this winter in that part of the world, I doubt it's the worst thing in the world in perspective).

I like to be involved in GARs and I will iron out any minor foibles myself, because I don't see the point in ordering others to put in an extra comma or merge two sentences together. If there is something I don't understand, that is when I will ask you to change it.

Good luck '''tAD''' (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this article on. I'm not sure I would add it to the YCFC FT yet if it passes, considering it's still only in the planning phase. With generally being an eternal pessimist and the frustration of the constant delays, I'm not entirely convinced it will ever be built. And with our now near-certain relegation back into non-League, I'm not sure there'll still be a YCFC (at least in that form) in the coming years. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first comment is that this is, of course, an article on a future project. That shouldn't be a problem. They discourage upcoming media titles from GA status because critical reception is a major part of the article. Also, I failed a nomination on the next American election because the way it is in 2015 would look nothing like it would do in 2019, let alone 2020. However, all that would have to be added here would be any delays or issues, the ceremonies of groundbreaking and opening, the first game. All entirely manageable. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is YCFC the lone "operator", not in tandem with the Knights? This parameter isn't used on the most famous shared ground, the San Siro. It is on the GA-class DW Stadium, although both teams come under the same corporate umbrella. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this from August 2014, YCFC will be responsible for operating and managing the stadium. This is included in the article the third para of Planning history. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the first mention under "planning history", can you say describe where Huntington is in relation to the settlement of York (X miles (X km) to the (direction)) I see from Wiki that H'ton is to the north of York, but I am not familiar with it. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that it is to the north of York, but I'm not sure how one would quantify the distance from York as the two are physically connected. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame we have no image ASFAIK of the current ground which will be replaced, but of course that is no reason to deduct marks from this article '''tAD''' (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've asked someone on flickr who has uploaded photos of the ground if they would mind relicencing them, so here's hoping. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could a seating plan fall under public domain? Again, not essential. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing, but I've found this planning drawing on the official website. I could draw a schematic like this I did for Bootham Crescent, but I'm unsure what the situation is regarding copyright. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing – just a suggestion, I won't deduct any marks if you think my suggestion is daft – is there a public domain map of York in commons? Pins could be put on the stadium and at the Minster, so people who have visited York – a decent percentage of the British at least – could have a bit of relativity, because Huntington is a lesser-known settlement. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find one. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing stands out in a glaring fashion after a read. Soon, I shall check each reference. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AGF on all print references. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In ref. 5, Persimmon's prospects due to the mortgage crash in 2008 are mentioned. Worth mentioning, even if it didn't scupper their project? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure... I don't think it would fit in with the context of the sentence, and I think it would have taken more than a global financial crash to make Persimmon even consider sacrificing the propsect of real estate in the centre of York! Mattythewhite (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. 7: An Ian McAndrew is mentioned as "stadium development director", does he remain in any leading post in the process of the stadium? The Press claim to have "exclusively revealed" talks in Feb. 2007 about buying land off Nestlé, is this a verifiable claim that can go in the article? Is there any basis to the claims by The Press that the ground would borrow elements from Dartford's? Both of these last two points are interesting if true, but I'm not sure if claims from nine years prior to construction are verifiable. I get that there were "confidentiality clauses" but I doubt that by quoting The Press you will end up in prison. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McAndrew remains on the club's board with the same portfolio, but I'm not sure how to get his name in the article without it being shoehorned. I'm not sure the locations and designs from nine years are notable, especially as they weren't brought forward. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. 11: Is this £2.1 million loan from the council worth mentioning? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this from September 2008, it never actually happened. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. 14: Worth mentioning the other options? Also, even though it's one author's opinions, could the pros and cons be summed up briefly? I'm particularly piqued by this "ancient monument", I'm sure you would know what they're describing here. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've included the author's pros and cons. That's the first I've heard of this "scheduled ancient monument", and going by this it consists of two Roman camps! It hasn't had any impact on the project AFAIK. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. 17: The controversy around the project should be mentioned, if it led to an 8 and a half hour debate. Quite interesting that the city's Tories and Greens were on the same page! '''tAD''' (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded, mentioning the critics' arguments regarding the city centre economy. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 19: The ecological cause of the delay could be mentioned '''tAD''' (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, not a bad article. Well-written and impeccably sourced. Just some of the detail is omitted. Of course, if you disagree with my suggestions and can convince me the other way, it can pass right now. Until then, I'm putting it on hold. '''tAD''' (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faultless! Passed '''tAD''' (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]