Wikipedia:Peer review/Stadium of Light/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stadium of Light[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive a broad outlook on how to improve the article. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)
  • The article is very well referenced, but I'm concerned about the chronology of the History section. You start talking about the expansion of the stadium in the third paragraph, but then in the fourth paragraph you go back to its opening. I understand that it does help to group related topics together (i.e. construction and expansion), but I found that very confusing. Done - Moved it around a bit.
  • What are the actual names of the stands? From what I gather, they are currently named "Kronenbourg Stand", "West Stand", "South Stand" and "East Stand", but at one point you refer to the "north stand". If that was the previous name for the Kronenbourg Stand, I think it should probably be written as "North Stand". Comment - The stands are the South Stand, North Stand, East Stand, West Stand. The upper tier of the stadium also have different names, the west part of the upper tier is called the Kronenburg upper stand, and the west upper stand is called the Premier Concourse.
    • OK, I still think you should change "north stand" to "North Stand" though. – PeeJay 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When referring to the construction costs, I would suggest that instead of writing out "£23,000,000", you should go for "£23 million" instead. Would seem to fit with the usage of "£15 million" you went with earlier on. Done
  • The statement about the shape of the stadium creating a louder atmosphere needs sourcing. Done - Couldn't find a source, must've been there before, removed it now.
  • I think that the statement about the stadium hosting the University of Sunderland's graduation ceremony should probably be placed somewhere else in the Other uses section, as it would seem more appropriate to put the other sporting uses at the top of that section, followed by the more unorthodox uses. Did that one myself.

Hope these comments help. – PeeJay 21:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]