Wikipedia:Peer review/Gateshead International Stadium/archive2

Gateshead International Stadium[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This was recently passed through WP:GA and I'm considering giving it a run through WP:FAC. I had request a peer review a month or so ago and it was closed without comment for some reason(!) I'd be grateful if someone can have a look at this – I'm hopeless at things like templates and endashes and my prose is sometimes is a little unencyclopedic, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments – I feel bad that you didn't get a peer review the first time you asked for one, so I'll give you one now.

Telford is listed in several citations, but I don't see any sources authored by the person of this name.

This has now been added.

Also, I see one 1988 Telford cite along with a bunch of 1989s. Are they two different sources, or is the year wrong in one of the cites?

The 1989s were all wrong – the book is from 1988. These have all been changed.

Refs 106 and 107 are to apparent newspaper articles, but the newspapers aren't provided, making it impossible to verify the citations.

For some reason I've used cite book templates here instead of cite web (further evidence of my inability to use wiki-templates). This has now been changed.

Ref 113 is to simply "Tina". Is this a book or some other type of source? If it is a book, a page number and other info will need to be added.

It's a newspaper article. I've fixed the ref and linked an archive of the article.

Authors in the two ref sections should be alphabetized.

Only one section now but done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For all references from newspapers or magazines, the publisher should be italicized in the citation. I see refs in which the Newcastle Evening Chronicle needs italics, more specifically refs 78 and 80. Also, make sure all of the references have access dates, so that you don't have to add them in the middle of an FAC.

These should now all be done.

The two en dashes in the lead (not the one in the year range) should be spaced on both sides, not just one, if that's the way you want to have them, Either that or make them unspaced on both sides. This should be done throughout, as I see numerous areas where this is an issue.

I have simply never been able to get to grips with en dashes. I've spaced all of them save those in ranges.

"Although the stadium primarily caters for athletics, it is currently also home to several teams." Athletics doesn't need a second link in the lead, and the "also" is one of a couple in the lead that could stand to be trimmed.

I've removed the superfluous link and some 'also's.

History and development: "Gateshead council pressed ahead by looking to develop existing infrastructure with a view to overall regeneration." This appears to lack a citation, and it would be best if one was added.

Done. I've simplified the references here which were needlessly complex (paragraphs and whatnot).

"commenced on 6 September 2010 was completed on time in summer 2011 and the corporate facilities are now open to the public." Feels like bracketing commas are needed after the two years. Either that or add "and" after the first year, with a semi-colon after the second year.

I've tidied that lot up by splitting into two sentences.

"replete with ice rink, indoor golf course, restaurants and shops." Needs "an" before "ice rink".

Done.

Last part of the section could use a reference, if one can be found. That also appears uncited at first glance.
Gateshead Football Club: "Gateshead Football Club The original Gateshead F.C. played in the Football League". First three words appear to be intruding on the rest of the sentence.

Indeed. Rearranged to make actual sense.

Structure and facilities: Period needed after 11,800.

Done.

"The main stand is the Tyne and Wear Stand, a steep, cantilevered structure and which seats 3,300 spectators." Remove "and", as it is hurting the flow of the sentence.

Done.

"Opposite is the East Stand, a 4,000 seat capacity stand...". Don't "seat" and "capacity" serve the same purpose here? I'd get rid of the second one.

Indeed they do. I have removed the redundancy.

First bit of truly informal writing you were concerned about: "but the facility was somewhat bedeviled by problems". I think this could easily be made more formal while getting the message across just as well.

I've reworded this.

Do they call it a "weights room" in Britain?

Ordinarily no, but there are two seperate rooms; one is literally a weights room and the other a gymnasium (cardio machines and the like).

I'm noticing quite a few issues in the writing, so I'm going to stop here for now. Take care of these items and I'll see what I can do to help on the copy-editing front. It does look like you've gotten a lot out of the article content-wise, and once copy-edited it should be at least a viable FAC candidate. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for picking this up so quickly – I wasn't expecting anyone to do so this side of Christmas to be honest. I've made the changes suggested above (save two, which I need to look into a little further) and would be grateful for further suggestions/comments. Thanks again... Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun going through the article and will add comments as I make progress. First, the lead says the 1974 Gateshead Games were the first athletics meet at this stadium, but that is contradicted by the body, which says there was a major meet in 1961.

The Gateshead Games were the first meet at the renovated and re-opened stadium. I've made a small change to reflect this.

Athletics: I'm concerned about the appropriateness of "The games were to prove a watershed moment not just for Gateshead Stadium, but also for British athletics." How was winning this particular event "a watershed moment" for British athletics. That needs more explanation if it is to stay, and a more encyclopedic tone.

I've just taken it out.

"In 2006, a crowd of 8,500 enjoyed unusually warm and humid weather...". The commentary about fans enjoying the weather slips into sports magazine-type writing. I think the sentence would be better without it.

Well. Gateshead is rather noted for the dreadful weather which usually greets athletes, but I've taken it out as I am trying to avoid this precise type of journalistic prose.

Gateshead Senators: "when the Newcastle Senators, who played Northern Rugby Club". Played them in what? Or is that meant to be "had played at Northern Rugby Club"? I can't fix this without the knowledge of the club's history.

They played at Northern Rugby Club. I've corrected the typo.

I'm not convinced that reference 73 is a reliable source. It looks like somebody's personal website, not the team's site as the citation claims.

The source is a redirect from the official site. If you click here and then links-Division 1 champions it takes you to this page. I think this page is therefore reliable, though I admit it is old and not very professional looking at first glance. Perhaps worth adding a note to the reference about the redirect?

That's a good idea. Something similar to the note in ref 23 should work. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead Football Club: The content in ref 79 should be attributed to the author, as it sounds like we're the ones saying that the club has a soulless stadium.

Can't find the author, so have attributed to the magazine.

The part "but financing has been difficult and the move has yet to take place" can't possibly be cited fully by ref 83, since it was published in 2011. I recommend finding another source to support the updated part, or just removing it. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~This should be easy enough to find a more recent source.I'll root around and see what can be found.~~ This has now been done Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much again for this - these sort of nit-picks are exactly what is needed of this is to stand any chance at FAC. I also notice that you have done some much needed and much appreciated copy-editing. If anything else is spotted, please let me know. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important one here: Do you want the mentions of the various clubs to be in a singular ("its", "was") or plural ("they", "were") fashion? There are some inconsistencies currently, and I've seen entire FACs sink over this issue before. The prose reviewers will pay close attention to this, so it's important to get it sorted out now.

I've changed all to plural for consistency as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead Harriers: "Club officials received over 100 new applications for membership in the aftermath of the 2012 London Olympics will help the club to better performances in 2013." Grammar is flawed, but that could be fixed. More importantly, who is saying this will help the club? Again, without some attribution it sounds like we are offering an opinion on the subject, which we shouldn't do.

I had messed about with names and whatnot but ultimately decided just to take the latter part of the sentence out. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead Thunder: "Relations with the stadium have been strained at times". I'm not sure that a club can have a relationship with a stadium. I modified the sentence slightly, but this problem still exists. Are the relations with stadium management?

The source notes difficulties between the club and Gateshead Council, so I've added the council to the text. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transport: Last sentence of the section could use a cite.

I can't find one, sadly, so I've taken it out. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The websites in the bibliography need access dates, just like the ones in short cites.

Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I'm not a big fan of the abbreviations in a few of the references. They aren't easy to spot in the bibliography, and I have a feeling the FAC source-checkers will comment on them. Better to take care of them now. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated all of the online sources into the references, so there is only one abbreviation left and this is for a text source with an unknown author. I've left this one as it should be easy enough to spot now. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is now just one outstanding matter (which might prove problematic). I'll have a look into this and we should be done... Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]