Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portman Road


 * 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 article was promoted 00:02, 29 January 2008.

Portman Road


Well another Ipswich Town article to hopefully complement the other FA's and FL's. I based the structure of the article and the general tone and content on an existing featured article, namely Priestfield Stadium and had a productive peer review. I humbly submit the article to the scrutiny of the community and will, as I hope I always do, respond quickly and constructively to each and every comment you may wish to make. Thanks in advance for your time and effort in reviewing the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support provisionally on the basis of one question. I've made some amendments from the refs, but have one query regarding the building of the first stand in 1905. This ref which is used elsewhere but not for that sentence says it was 1906. Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Great work. Peanut4 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I guess I mistyped. Not sure where '05 came from so I've reverted to 1906 which is per source.  Eagle eyes award to Peanut4.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support All my issues dealt with at PR. Another excellent article off TRM's production line of FAs. Just a shame it's about such a distasteful subject. Still, happy to support (though you might push me if you ever develop John Wark. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support My comments have been addressed. Looks good, (and shows me Villa Park needs a bit more work). Woody (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support The only mistake I found I corrected, so it passes for me, an excelent article well done NapHit (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support All looks good, nice one TRM! ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Just one thing - should we try to get at least one non-footy person to look at each football FAC, just to give a different perspective? Just a thought. --Jameboy (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I always think at least one other person should be involved, just to make sure we are not too "in-universe". Conversely I think that local projects are best equipped at stating that it meets the comprehensiveness standard. Woody (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy for anyone to review the article against FAC standards, but people do seem to stick with their own topics... But here's an open invitation not non-WP:FOOTY reviewers .. review away! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Has come along nicely since the PR started, concerns raised there have all been dealt with. One minor point: a name which became synonymous with the stand which would be located there until the early 21st century - Mixing of tenses makes this difficult to parse. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits and your support. I've tried to match the tenses, it still feels a touch clumsy, feel free to rejig it!  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Added a couple of snippets, but aside from that, it's about as comprehensive as could be. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  11:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.