Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gateshead International Stadium/archive1


 * 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 list was promoted by 10:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC).

Gateshead International Stadium

 * Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've spent about six months working on this article, which describes the host venue of the 2013 European Team Championships. It started as a stub, was promoted to GA in November 2012, was peer reviewed by Giants2008  in December 2012 and was then kindly given a once over for content and prose by Sarastro1 over the Christmas holidays (recorded for posterity on the article talk page). Hopefully it is now ready for a crack at FAC. I will be available to respond to comments and suggestions. Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Hi there. This is looking pretty good so far. Prose is largely up to snuff and I've started going through some of the references. There are some issues that need to be addressed (though nothing fatal to the article's FAC, at least upon my first read-through). There are the occasional jargon/unfamiliar reader concerns (ex. in the lead Gateshead F.C. is mentioned without cluing people to what sport they play; same deal with the 3,000m), colloquialisms ("slated"), and redundancies ("The report also noted concerns that the original centrepiece of the proposed village, the ice rink, may have been deterring investors and that a proposal to redevelop land at the Stadium of Light in Sunderland, which also proposed an ice rink as a centrepiece, was detracting from what councillors had hoped to be a unique feature of the proposed village."). The article should try to refrain from citing primary sources as much as possible--this mainly means the sports team websites. Also, much of the Transport section strikes me as problematic, as you are pretty much repeating map directions and primary source info from the Metro website.

Some other items I wanted to bring up:
 * The last sentences of the History and Development section seem to go off the rails a bit, becoming nonsensical. The last sentence even ends on a comma.
 * I've corrected the grammar problem and slightly reworded to give a bit more cohesion I think. Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Are concert performances a rarity at the venue? If not, I wonder why single out these particular performances.
 * Yes, they are indeed, especially since the opening of the Metro Radio Arena just accross the river in 1995. I can't think of any concerts held there at all since around that time (and I live in Gateshead). Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the sentence that starts "While these did not have an immediate positive impact..." what is "these" referring to?
 * I've reworded slightly to give better context. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What makes bluesqfootball.com and footballgroundguide.com reliable sources?
 * The Blue Square site is the official site of the league; It is actually called the 'Blue Square Premier Division' but obviously this is not included in the article. The other one is perhaps not reliable (I'm not sure) so I have replaced with a link to a BBC report. Meetthefeebles (talk)


 * Is there a proper criteria to define "world class" athletes?
 * This one came up in PR - I thought I'd taken these out. It is now gone. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * When inline citing The Brewing Grade Review, since there's no author listed type out the full title instead of writing an acronym, and place the title in italics.
 * Wasn't sure how to deal with that one. It has been changed as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Journey time by car from Gateshead town centre is approximately five minutes and a further five minutes travel from Newcastle upon Tyne.[110]" This link does not work for me. Also, if you are making calculations instead of citing something that is plainly said, that skirts on original research.
 * The link didn't work for me, either, so I've added a new one. It is a calculation of sorts; the link is to a bus timetable. Is there a better source that might just stipulate this? If not, I'll just take it out if necessary. Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll check back in on this FAC and will add further comments as I review the article further. In any event, good luck, and I hope everything will be taken care of in due course. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to read and leave comments. I've making some small changes as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – As stated in the nomination, I contributed suggestions for the article at peer review; in addition, I did some copy-editing back then, and tweaked a few things before coming here. My impression back then was that the article would have a strong chance at passing FAC with additional copy-editing, which has been done by Sarastro. My only additional comment is that the note in the bibliography on abbreviations has no purpose now, since the abbreviations were removed after Wesley's review. Otherwise, I think that the article meets the FA criteria, and see no reason to withhold support as I have faith that the note will be fixed prompted. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support and for the excellent work at peer review which improved the article. I have removed the superfluous bibliography note. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  on prose and comprehensiveness. I had a squiz at this some time ago, but got distracted and forgot about it (as is the way of things). Anyway, here we are and I'll take another squiz and jot queries below..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 *  Since then is has been extensively re-developed, most notably in the early 1970s, 2006 and 2010.  - (a) I presume the "is" should be an "it", and (b) is "notably" the right adverb? Do you mean "extensively"? (I wouldn't have thought of renovations as famous....)


 *  Gateshead football club have played their home games at the stadium since their modern inception in 1974. - "modern inception" sounds funny to me ...."modern incarnation" or "reformation" or ...?


 *  However, there are plans to vacate the site when their own purpose-built ground is built.  - subjects of two segments ("plans" and "their own...") don't gell - better would be However, the club will vacate the site when their own purpose-built ground is built. 


 *  a former schoolteacher turned world-class athlete - I'd drop "world-class" as a bit puffy.


 *  the venue was renamed the "Gateshead International Stadium". - quotes unnecessary here.


 *  and the venues's profile was further raised in the summer of 1983 - too many s's?

Looking good otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look and comment - 'tis always appreciated. I've made some small amendments per your suggestions (though I think this nomination looks somewhat doomed to failure through lack of interest). Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: regarding File:Gateshead_harriers_logo_on_black_background.png, are you sure this is a free image? The given licensing info doesn't seem to make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is okay. I must confess that I didn't upload or even add this image - I logged into Wiki one day and someone had added it to the article... Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Support with copy-editing disclaimer: This is a (relatively) long article, and its structure does not really flow, but this comes from the subject matter, and the necessary limitations of this type of article, not the writing. I copy-edited and commented on the article before it came to FAC, and the changes made then and since leave me confident that this is FA standard. I would have commented much sooner, but I prefer uninvolved editors to comment first where I have been copy-editing. And, to be honest, I forgot it was here! I'd still be happier if some other editors could check the prose, but I suspect that may not happen, so I will support now. However, I agree with Nikkimaria that the Harriers logo looks suspect, and I would be inclined to remove it to be on the safe side. Otherwise, good work and well done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and for taking the time to look over the article prior to this nomination. Both are appreciated. In light of your concern and that of Nikkimaria, I've simply removed the Harriers logo. Hopefully one or two more editors can take a look at the article before it's time is up... Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments
 * Your first FAC, Meetthefeebles? If so, a belated welcome!  That being the case, I'll want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- if none of the reviewers above take care of it, I'll probably do it myself in the next couple of days.
 * You have Harv errors in the Bibliography, though they shouldn't take long to fix -- install this script to see them for yourself in future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian. It isn't my first FAC but I am rarely here (most of my time is spent at GAN) and your kind welcome is appreciated nonetheless. I've fixed (I think) the Harv errors in the bibliography and I am available to deal with any other issues. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Still see the Harv errors in the Bibliography section -- did you use the script I mentioned above? Looking at the article, you don't appear to be using Harv citations anyway, so the simplest thing is to just remove the "ref=harv" parameter from the templates in the Bibliography.
 * Done. I tried to use the script but I am hopeless at such things and simply got lost... Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One other thing, however, I couldn't see where Cox was cited in the article. In that case, the book should be removed from the Bibliography section (it could be included in a "Further reading" section if you choose).  Pls check for similar instances. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cox was in an older version of the article but was removed at PR. The others in the bibliography are all fine after a check. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Source spotcheck Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FN13 (c) -- okay
 * FN17 (b) -- okay
 * FN17 (c) -- can't see specific mention of the 1974 "Gateshead Games" on page 1
 * FN79 -- okay
 * FN99 -- okay
 * FN113 -- okay


 * Thanks Ian. I've added a reference to a new source which specifically mentions the "Gateshead Games" at FN17 (c) per your comment above. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That'll do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.