Talk:PNC Park/GA1

GA Review
I will take a look at this article more in-depth later today, but here are some things I noticed right away: Good luck with the fixes. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead is too short.
 * 2)  The image in the Eateries subsection isn't helpful and should be removed.
 * 3)  The popular culture section is unnecessary and should be removed.
 * 4) The end of the Park firsts subsection appears to be unsourced.
 * 5)  There aren't nearly enough references to justify a scroll bar.
 * 6)  The correct order for the final three sections is: References, External Links, and then your succession boxes/templates/etc.

Some more things to work on:
 * 1)  The lead claims that PNC "has been hailed multiple times, most notably by ESPN.com, as the best ballpark in the country." The sentence is supported by three references, two of which are the same article (ref 4 and 5), and one of which is the Pirates website (ref 6). The Pirates website is not a RS here; of course they praise their own ballpark. Perhaps this should just be "has been hailed as one of the best ballparks in the country." This sentence is a summary of the Reception and praise section, and wouldn't need to be referenced.
 * 2)  This seems implied, but is the "North side site" where the park was built?
 * Yes. I added an additional sentece to the intro paragraph for clarification.  Black  ngold29   06:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1)  "During its opening season, PNC Park's seating capacity of 38,496 was the second-smallest of any major league stadium, the smallest being Fenway Park." Do we really feel the need to include Fenway Park?
 * Once you hear it's the second smallest, wouldn't you wonder what the smallest is? There are many parks that cover up seats and become smaller, but Fenway is the only one I could find a reference for.  Black  ngold29   16:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with that. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1)  The "Playing surface and ground rules" section doesn't have any ground rules. How about "Playing surface and park dimensions"?
 * 2)  The "Reception and praise" section can just be "Reception"
 * 3) The "Park 'firsts'" section is probably unnecessary. There is some useful stuff in there, such as the first preseason game and the first regular season game. Things such as who through the first pitch, the first home run, etc. are probably not needed. Might I suggest that the college baseball stuff go into a separate section titled "Other events," where notable events that are not MLB-related are detailed (such as college baseball, concerts, etc.).
 * For example, the Rolling Stones once held a concert at PNC.
 * I moved the college stuff, but left a reference to the first college game (It is a first). I know that there have been concerts (The Rolling Stones was the one I was thinking of) and even movies shown there.  Black  ngold29   16:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm thinking about a "realignment" of sorts of the article sections, and the lead was expanded in the middle of writing this, so I'll give my thoughts on the new lead in a bit.
 * It's your call. I was thinking that the "firsts" section isn't really neccessary, but would we really gain anything by eliminating it?  Black  ngold29   06:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article sections
I was thinking this might be a better alignment for the article:

Reception
I would merge the relevant and sourced info from the park 'firsts' section into the Design, construction and park opening section. Also, the lead needs to be split into two paragraphs. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I redid it as per your suggestion, with one exception. I moved the "Reception" section up and combined it with the "Park Opening". So the sections are "Design and construction", then "Park opening and reception". I thought the reception was out of place down at the bottom, but if you object you are welcome to move it.  Black  ngold29   03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. I'll look through it again tomorrow. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Review
It took a bit longer than I thought it would for me to go through this again. Sorry about that. Here are a couple of things to take a look at:

1. "...seats behind home-plate are closer to the batter than the pitcher" This occurs twice in the article--once in the lead and once in the seating section. It suggests that the distance from the seats to home plate is shorter that the distance from the seats ot the pitcher. That is, of course, true, but not what you're going for. How about "The batter is closer to the seats behind home plate than to the pitcher"?

2. Much of the park opening section is unsourced. Further, the bit about hitting home runs into the river doesn't belong in this section, and is better off in the park dimensions section.
 * All of the "firsts" come from here (citation 1), I moved it to the end since putting it after every sentence seems repetitive.

3. "Ryan Howard won the title hitting 23 home runs" This is a bit misleading becuase the home run derby is not won by hitting the most home runs, it is won by qualifying for the next round and then winning the next round. Perhaps we should just mention that it was won by Howard without mentioning the number of homers he hit.

4. Check to make sure that everything that needs to be wikilinked is wikilinked. For instance, there are a few baseball terms that are not wikilinked that probably ought to be wikilinked.
 * I added some, I don't think there are too many more, at least not related to baseball.  Black  ngold29   02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We're getting close to GA-status. Keep up the good work!
 * I've just completed my final run-through of the article and I'm going to pass it. Congrats! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)