Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Valley Parade

Add links
From 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 promoted 00:03, 17 April 2008.

Valley Parade[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've improved the article in line with other football grounds recently featured, Portman Road and Priestfield Stadium, and now think this one is also ready for FAC. I've put it through a Peer Review, which included a copy edit, and now put it forward for comments to a wider audience. NB This is a self-nomination Peanut4 (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted that the information isn't exactly controversial, what makes http://www.footballgroundguide.com/ a reliable site?
    • I think you nailed on my own thoughts. I was unsure whether to use it as a source, but like you say the information isn't controversial, and also the other two articles above use it as a source. I know that probably doesn't answer your question but I'd go along with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) if pushed, particularly given the non-controversial claims it is referencing. Peanut4 (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll leave this one up for folks to judge for themselves. I'm on the fence about it. Its so uncontroversial that it's hard to get to picky. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    the links all checked out using the link checker tool and the other sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The writing is reasonable, but a run-through by someone fresh to it is necessary. I found little glitches here and there, such as:
      • "when they changed code from rugby football to association football and became Bradford City"—A football club became a city?
    • Bradford City is the name of the club. indopug (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Manningham Rugby Football Club, which had been formed in 1876, had originally played their games ..."—Had ... had. Try: "Manningham Rugby Football Club, formed in 1876, had originally played their games ...".
      • "their ... their"—watch those repetitions; can you do an audit throughout?
      • "The area was already known as Valley Parade—the site of the new ground was described to Manningham's board as near the Valley Parade skating rink[7]—because it was on the hillside below Manningham.[1] The ground adopted the new name and the road on which it stands is also called Valley Parade." Why the skating rink point embedded in this sentence? Twists and winds.
      • "The original ground was composed of a 2,000-capacity stepped enclosure with the players' changing rooms below, the playing area, a cinder athletics track and fencing to limit the total capacity to 18,000." "Comprised a 2000-seat stepped" would be better.
        • There were no seats so I've gone for 2,000-capacity. Peanut4 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "when financial and playing difficulties"—what are playing difficulties?
      • "8,000-capacity stand"—again. Is this the normal term? I'd have thought "8,000-seat".
        • Again it was for standing room only. Peanut4 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The stadium remained virtually unchanged until 1952, and was still recognisable in 1985"—"recognisable" is assuming quite a "given" (that it's from the perspective of an old-timer). Express in terms of change, as in the first clause.
      • Why is "yards" linked? And why is the pounds symbol linked?
        • I'd say they were better to be linked for those unsure of the terminology. Peanut4 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "With" is a very poor connector. "with all but the East Stand being two-tiered"—try ", all two-tiered by the e s".

    Stuff like that. See if you can get the whole thing polished; don't just deal with the random examples. TONY (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose: This is not a fixed position, but I cannot support at the moment. The lead is good, clear and concise, but the History section, which is most of the article, needs a considerable amount of attention.

    • The section is a dense mass of facts. You should consider whether some of the more detailed and less important information might be deleted, and other tangential facts, such as the Gateshead appeal, might better be given by way of footnotes.
      • I did wonder the same thing myself at peer review. I'm going to take out some of the minor details. Particularly the changes between 1911 and 1985. Peanut4 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section should be subdivided under appropriate headings, to give it an internal structure. It's down to you to decide what these subsections should be, but I'd suggest "Early days" for the period up to 1903, another section up to the early fifties, another up to the fire, and a final section to bring it up to date - but these are only suggestions.
    • You also need to look at individual paragraphs, some of which are overlong and switch to different topics without a break.
    • A thorough copyedit of the text is necessary. Some sentences are too long (e.g. second sentence of section), some are awkwardly phrased, (second and third sentences, and there are others further down).

    There are other points which I think need clarification, but I won't bring these up for the present, and some might be cleared up anyway, if the above is attended to. I am impressed by the amount of research that has gone into this article, and feel that it's worth doing the extra work. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks very much for both your suggestions. I've tried my best to address the points made by both of you, and some input has been made by another two editors. I've not yet add any sub-sections to the history section, but would be prepared to do, if you still feel it needs one. Any other suggestions are most welcome. Peanut4 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it needs subsections, I'd prefer one eight paragraph section to three sections of two or three paragraphs, which might risk breaking the flow. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree, but see my detailed comments below. Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. No significant factual issues or omissions presented themselves when I went through the article, and it compares favourably with others of the same type. Good to see Inglis' seminal The Football Grounds of Great Britain used as a reference too, a definite sign that a thorough job has been done. Full disclosure: I have done some copyediting during the course of this nomination, but have not otherwise made any significant contributions to the article. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    You have addressed some of my concerns, but others remain. The chief one is still the lack of structure in the History section. Despite the remarks of the reviewer above, I believe that a fact-packed history covering 120+ years and a number of distinct phases is not best served by this amount of undifferentiated prose. It’s too easy for the reader to get lost in the mass of facts. If you insist on not subdividing, then you need at the very least to have more logic in your paragraph breaks, and I have also made some suggestions in this respect.

    Another point of slight concern to me, reading through, is the extent to which you may have assumed the reader’s prior knowledge of the structure of English football, with references to various Divisions, the Premiership, promotion etc. I know that the article is about the ground, but on some occasions, which I have indicated, I think a few words of explanation would be appropriate.

    The following are my detailed points of concern:

    • History section
      • A natural paragraph break would be after “Midland Railway Company”
      • £1,400 needs a modern approximate equivalence
      • “top part” of new ground is not geographically precise
      • Suggest “comprised” rather than “was composed of”
      • The one-year-old stand moved to the top part doesn’t appear in the ground description
      • “…the players’ changing rooms below.” Below in what sense – underneath the stepped enclosures?
      • It would help understanding if the game against Wakefield Trinity was described as “reserve” or “friendly”.
      • Suggest reword to avoid repetition of “first” in “first team played their first…”
      • Comma needed after Valley Parade in last line of para
      • There is a natural subsection break at this point.
      • Second sentence of para: “The first association football….”
      • Bradford City “was”, not “were” elected
      • I’m a bit confused about the changing arrangements – what happened to the players’ changing rooms below the stepped enclosure?
      • 5-1 defeat by, not “to” Man city
      • Drop comma after “As a result…”
      • Clarify it was a ground, not a club, reconstruction programme
      • Drop comma after “5,300-seater main stand”
      • You say they built a Spion Kop and an 8,000-capacity stand at the Midland Road end. You haven’t yet defined this end geographically. Also, according to the link, a Spion Kop is a stand. Does that mean two stands built at the Midland Road end?
      • “Dressing-rooms” is a change of description – formerly changing rooms. But I’m really confused by a tunnel apparently leading from underneath the Kop to the opposite corner of the ground. That sounds like a tunnel under the pitch. Surely you can’t mean that?
      • The cost of £9958 should have a modern equivalent
      • Better not to use “completed” twice in quick succession
      • Surely matches “take place” – they don’t “occur”?
      • At start of next para the age of the ground isn’t really the lead point, it’s the purchase of the ground in 1932. I would reword along the following lines: “On 17 March 1932 Bradford City paid the Midland Railway Company £3,750 (2008 equivalent approx. £120,000) for the remaining two-thirds of the site, to become outright owners of the ground, which was now 45 years old”. I’d also tag this on to the previous para because hereafter you’re talking post WW2. For good measure I’d start a new subsection here.
      • “virtually unchanged” from when? From the 1908 changes I assume, but this should be made clear.
      • From this point on I get terribly confused about the various stand rebuildings. I can’t quite fathom how it can be clarified, but I’m lost from the moment you say that half the Midland Road stand was closed and its steel frame sold for £450. That sounds like a demolition – with half the stand still open! Thereafter it’s very difficult to follow, and I wonder whether the stand history could be simplified, instead of the detailed stage-by-stage account.
      • When you say the new stand was the “narrowest”, is this good or bad? The point need explaining.
      • The sell-and-buy back deal with the Council sounds like a fix. Is there a story here?
      • I’d start my final subsection with the fire paragraph
      • “one of the worst sporting disasters” is an incomplete statement, needs a context. Worst in Britain, the world, of all time, etc. As it stands it’s too general a statement.
      • “secured”, in loan terms, has a specific meaning. I think you mean the MPs negotiated or obtained the loans
      • Watch for consistency in capitalisation of Kop
      • I’m not pressing this point, but City’s promotion “back to Division 1” is misleading in footballing terms since Division 1 was I believe the renamed Second Division
      • Try to avoid duplication of “opened”
      • I'd have a para break after “27 March 1997”, within the same subsection
      • Perhaps a very brief explanation of why the club went into administration would be useful: “The financial consequences of the club’s relegation after two Premiership seasons meant that it was forced into administration”. Something like that?

    *Structure and facilities

      • “The Sunwin stand is the ground’s main stand and is called such…” Does “such” refer to Sunwin or main stand?
      • “family stand” – usually capitalised
      • “bantamspast” – needs explaining rather than simply appearing in the text
      • “Away fans” might need explaining to non-football people. “Visiting team fans”?
    • Fire: The sentence ending the penultimate para repeats information given in the History section
    • Other users: I think the words “the majority of which” are unnecessary in the third line from the bottom, and that the last line could refer to “their” ground.
    • Records: I’d rearrange this information so that the highest league attendance details came immediately after the record crowd information, and that the highest gate receipts came as the final sentence of the paragraph. I’d also say, for accuracy, “City’s official highest seasonal average…”
    • I think that there are nbsp violations throughout the article (45 years, 40 minutes, 56 spectators, 20 years, 29 games – possibly others). These should be checked.

    Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The final few points from structure onwards are pretty uncontroversial so I've done them. However I don't think family stand should be capitalised because it's not a proper noun. I'll add the non-breaking spaces in at the end unless any crop up later on. If I forget, bug me. Will try get on with the rest now. Peanut4 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These points are fine now. I'll do the nbsps I've found, as mentioned above, but I suggest you do a quick check for others. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. I think I've done most of the above, with the following exceptions:
      • Modern equivalent of values. I'll add some footnotes to explain this. But I don't know how to find the modern values. And my only concern with this, is that they would need continually updating.
    Modern equivalents of pre WW1 values can only be approximate. My normal practice has been to put a parenthetical note, e.g. (2008 equivalent = £xxxx) £1,400 in 1887 was a considerable sum in 1887, and some indication of its present worth would be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know what the Wakefield Trinity game was. I guess it was an exhibition game of some kind, but it's only a guess. None of the sources say what game it was. And the only source explaining Wakefield and Leeds games, simply says the first game was against Wakefield, but the first, 1st team, game was against Leeds.
        • Two sources seem to contradict each other. I've deleted the Leeds game and simply said the Wakefield game was the first, which is consistent across all sources.
    That's OK Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, you win Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: changing rooms. Again the source never mentions what happens to the original changing rooms so I can't guess. As with the above point, I will try my damndest to read over all the sources again to find out, but nowhere seems to say.
        • I've found some info. They appear to have been updated following changes first started in 1897.
      • When you say the new stand was the “narrowest”, is this good or bad? The point need explaining. It's neither good nor bad, simply that in order to open the stand again, they had to build it so narrow. If you think it needs a bit more explanation, let me know.
    Sounds more to me like one of those dispensable facts not worth mentioning. I'd drop it, or leave it as it is - no more explanation. Brianboulton (talk)#
      • The sell-and-buy back deal with the Council sounds like a fix. Is there a story here? Very possibly but it would be WP:OR. The source calls it "Heginbotham's shrewdness and business acumen."
    OK Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The administration was down to a host of reasons. And not really related to the ground except for the affects it had to be sold - which is in the text.
    Not sure I accept this analysis, unless you're sure that the costs incurred in developing the ground for the Premier League had nothing to do with the administration. Brianboulton (talk)
      • I've still left in without sub-sections. My personal feeling would be simply one for "Up to and including the fire" and "Post-fire" because they are two distinct periods of the ground. But I feel the fire would act too much as a splice. It was as a result of the past, and had an affect on the future. Peanut4 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support The lack of subsections continues to trouble me. You've made it better by adopting more natural paragraph breaks, but I continue to believe that a narrative of this length is navigated more easily with signpost section headings. You have, however, done enough for me to remove my original oppose. The very best of luck to you, after all your efforts. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    I've reordered some of the citations so they appear numerically, just in case you wondered what I'd done.

    • Why is Carlsberg Stand linked to Carlsberg? Misleading link, just link Carlsberg.
    • Don't like the text squashed between the two quote boxes, can you stagger them?

    Otherwise it's very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Indeed you're right. I've changed the links.
      • Again, point two, you're right. Unfortunately, if I move one of the quote boxes, it will squash against the image. Do you reckon it may be better to simply include the quotes in the text itself? Peanut4 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe one quote box and one in-line quote? Compromise is good! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Made a slight re-jig. Hope it looks good now. Peanut4 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - excellent work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - my (very) detailed comments were at the PR and I see from the above that it's been further polished since. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 16 April 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/Valley_Parade&oldid=1088821251"