Talk:York Park/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) *The lead does not summarize the article well enough. It overfocuses on history, and at the same time mentions elements that are not part of the body (for instance the sponsorship agreement). Rewrite the lead to include all sections, and include the sponsorship information in the main history section. ✅
 * 2) *Please, it is more than a year since we stopped wikilinking years. ✅
 * 3) *It is very confusing for the reader to have to read history sections out of chronological order. Please rephrase the lead so all the information is chronological. ✅
 * 4) *After wikilinking 'AU$' at first occurrence, further use of only '$' is sufficient, since the article is about an Australian-only topic. ✅
 * 5) *Do not confuse a hypen (-) and an endash (–). A hyphen is for connecting two words, while an endash is for a range, such as 2002–06. ✅
 * 6) *On wikipedia, you cannot write the date format 'January 1 1921'; the Manual of Style allows either 'January 1, 1921' or '1 January 1921'. ✅
 * 7) *Avoid phrases as "as late as..."; this sort of language implies some sort of judgement. Instead, just state the fact "Until..."; Wikipedia is after all an encyclopædia. ✅
 * 8) *No-one outside Australia has the faintest idea what AFL is. Whenever stating something that you want to reoccur as an acronym, always spell it out the first time, and add the acronym in parentesis. Do not even presume people know what an 'MP' is&mdash;for instance, the term does not exist in the world's largest English-speaking country. ✅
 * 9) *The article is slightly underlinked. While common terms should not be linked, it is often desirable to link to technical terms, even if they sometimes might be considered overlinking in articles in other fields. ✅
 * 10) *There are very strict and limited rules for what should be in italics, see WP:Italics. This does not just include random proper names. ✅
 * 11) *Why are there paragraphs with line breaks in the middle? ✅
 * 12) *Is there any public transport to somehow get the remaining 17,500 spectators to the grounds? I notice that most sport venue articles with GA status have a 'transport' section. A full paragraph will do, but I have honestly never come accross a 20,000-spectator venue that is not connected to public transport.
 * 13) **Well it's Tasmania, that pretty much says it all  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 09:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ) ✅
 * 14) *When numbers are used as adjectives, they should be hyphenated (e.g. two-tier). ✅
 * 15) *Either use one or two spaces after a period (full stop); do not alternate between the two styles. ✅
 * 16) *"consistently good crowds" is very vauge. State the numbers, either top and bottom, or the average. A good crowd is about as ambiguous as it gets. ✅
 * 17) *"bizarre" is a wiesel word, and should be avoided. Let the reader determine if the incident is bizarre or not. ✅
 * 18) *Never make one-setence paragraphs. ✅
 * 19) *"Planning and work on the physical Hall of Fame is yet to begin." is not dated. Need to have "as of ..." or similar. ✅
 * 20) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) *The references do not mention the Tasmania Run as the reason for the low attendence. ✅
 * 2) *What makes ref 3 and 33 reliable? ✅
 * 3) **What's unreliable about them? They are still a source.  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 09:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) *There are some part of 'Australian football' that are not referenced. ✅
 * 5) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) *The siren incident seems way out of proportion. While I am sure it caused a lot of attention, I cannot see how it can be granted two paragraphs in the article. Also, the technical terms related to Australian Rules Football need wiki linking, so that readers that are not Australian and not into single-nation sports can understand what is being said.
 * 2) **Was a very big indecent, i can't really see how it could be shortened and it doesn't seem to be harming anything  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 09:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ) ✅
 * 3) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) *Please, do not force image sizes. It makes it difficult for people with low bandwith (many people still use modems) and people with bad eyesight to customize optimal viewing. ✅
 * File:Sport Ground Launnie.jpg is a panorama-size image. I would highly recommend not using it in the infobox, but instead use it as a panorama image (own line, 550px wide) near the end of the article, and moving one of the other, more square images, to the infobox. ✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placing article on hold. There are a few issues that need to be resolved. Arsenikk (talk)  23:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer the questions: Ref 3 is unreliable because it is just some private web site. It does not contain any information about who the author is. Just because something is written on the Internet, does not mean it can be trusted, or is true. The contact information for the web site is a Hotmail account. Ref 36 (previously ref 33) is unreliable because it is a private blog site at Blogspot. More about this at WP:Reliable sources. Otherwise I notice that several of the links are dead; click here to see which are dead, and fix them (sorry I did not catch that yesterday). Concerning transport, it looks sufficient now.I guess you just do not have the greatest public transport in Tasmania; in Europe most stadiums that size would have a tram, metro or railway station near by. I stand by my opinion of the siren incident, becasue it is out of focus for the article. GA articles need to be balanced, and spending two paragraphs on a single match, no matter how important or newsworthy, is not balanced. Readers who are interested in more detail, can always click on the link to the incident article. Whether not the prose is actually causing harm, is not how we evaluate criterion 3 in a GA review. Otherwise, things are looking good. Arsenikk (talk)  14:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Public transport isn't great here, but is sufficient for a city this size. Being a small stadium not much is published about transport. Looks like all the issues have nearly been fixed.  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 06:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems that all issues are fixed. Thanks for your help!  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 06:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations with a good article! I hope to see more quality content about Tasmania at GAN soon ;) Arsenikk (talk)  08:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Placing article on hold. There are a few issues that need to be resolved. Arsenikk (talk)  23:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer the questions: Ref 3 is unreliable because it is just some private web site. It does not contain any information about who the author is. Just because something is written on the Internet, does not mean it can be trusted, or is true. The contact information for the web site is a Hotmail account. Ref 36 (previously ref 33) is unreliable because it is a private blog site at Blogspot. More about this at WP:Reliable sources. Otherwise I notice that several of the links are dead; click here to see which are dead, and fix them (sorry I did not catch that yesterday). Concerning transport, it looks sufficient now.I guess you just do not have the greatest public transport in Tasmania; in Europe most stadiums that size would have a tram, metro or railway station near by. I stand by my opinion of the siren incident, becasue it is out of focus for the article. GA articles need to be balanced, and spending two paragraphs on a single match, no matter how important or newsworthy, is not balanced. Readers who are interested in more detail, can always click on the link to the incident article. Whether not the prose is actually causing harm, is not how we evaluate criterion 3 in a GA review. Otherwise, things are looking good. Arsenikk (talk)  14:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Public transport isn't great here, but is sufficient for a city this size. Being a small stadium not much is published about transport. Looks like all the issues have nearly been fixed.  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 06:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems that all issues are fixed. Thanks for your help!  Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 06:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations with a good article! I hope to see more quality content about Tasmania at GAN soon ;) Arsenikk (talk)  08:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)