Wikipedia:Peer review/Home Park/archive1

Home Park
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I have done extensive work on the article over the last two weeks and would appreciate feedback on where it is currently at and what could possibly be improved. I drew influence on the general layout from Old Trafford and the City of Manchester Stadium, both of which are Featured Articles. My initial aim is for it to achieve Good Article status and then press on to achieving Featured Article status, so any feedback, suggestions, constructive criticism, etc will be very welcome. I would love to expand certain aspects of the article further, for instance the match involving select teams from the Football League and Irish League (line-ups, goalscorers, etc), but a lack of sources is a stumbling block where that is concerned.

So to summarize, I would greatly appreciate any feedback in order to improve the article and reach the goals that I've set.

Thankyou for your time. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall it looks as though you've put together a very informative article about one of my favourite grounds. A couple of things I noticed that could be improved: Sorry this is brief, I will try to review more thoroughly if time permits. --Jameboy (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC) ''Much appreciated. I think I've got all of the dates but if I haven't then it can be easily corrected. I've cleared up the second part too, again I think I got them all. The word 'arguably' is considered as a weasel word by the toolbox to the right so I've corrected that also.'' Argyle 4 Life (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by
 * Per WP:DATE, date format should be 10 October 1936 not 10th October 1936 (just an example, you'd need to fix all instances)
 * Don't use apostrophes to pluralise (matchdays, not matchday's)

Brianboulton comments: There are significant prose issues throughout the article, as well as questions of focus - the article often seems to veer away from the ground and towards the club. I have done some copyedits and tidying as I've read through the first few sections, but more needs to be done, and the later sections are untouched at present. Details:- I don't think the lead is too disimilar from Old Trafford, but I agree that including the match with Santos is excessive for that section. ''Corrected. Considering it is the lead, I went into too much detail.'' That is correct, more information about it is available in the relevent section, but if the lead should be changed to include "regionalised" or change the date to 1946 then so be it. ''"After further work" added. I didn't include the reasons behind converting the stadium to an all-seated venue because it would be excessive for the lead, as you put earlier.'' There is a reference at the end of the sentance and a summary of the plans in the Future section. ''Agreed as excessive. Removed.'' ''Pretty much the same, but corrected. ;) Corrected. Corrected. 1886 is the best I can do because there is no specific date for the club's formation, that I'm aware of. Re-worded. Corrected those that I spotted. Added citation. The reference to it is short, but I felt it should be included in the article. Re-worded and removed references to the club's players. Can see where you're coming from. Removed. Removed. There are few resources for me to go on so I felt it was better to include season summaries than nothing at all. It is a word that caught on during the Blitz, briefly explained here. Plymouthian's latched on to it when times were very bleak. It was a way of giving them strength to rebuild their lifes and is still used today. I feel it is a fitting word to use, but I can understand it might confuse the average reader. What title would you suggest? As for the focus of the section I see little reference to the club, aside from one match signifying the return of competitive football to the ground.'' ''I didn't realise there were specific rules regarding that. Removed.''
 * Lead: rather a mish-mash of assorted facts than a concise summary of the article, which is what a lead should be. Some of the detail is excessive for a lead section, such as "Pelé played and scored a penalty but it wasn't enough as the Pilgrims claimed a 3–2 victory." Other parts of the lead prose needing attention are:-
 * "It underwent several expansions in the 1920s and 1930s before it was heavily damaged in 1941 by the Nazi German Luftwaffe as part of the Plymouth Blitz during the Second World War." A lumbering sentence that needs drastic pruning. Without going into details of what's wrong with it, can I suggest as a replacement: "After undergoing considerable development in the 1920s and 1930s the ground suffered heavy damage during the Second World War." That says all that need be said.
 * Other football histories tell me that the Football League proper resumed in 1946, not 1945; the 1945–46 season was played on the basis of the wartime regional leagues.
 * "The work was completed in February 2002 and the stadium became all-seated in the summer of 2007." Shouldn't the words "after further work" be inserted after the "and"? Otherwise, after the construction of three all-seater stands, why did it take five years for the ground to become all-seater?
 * "The plans, designed by Populous..." - What plans? You haven't mentioned any.
 * "One of the most famous nights in the grounds long history came in 1973 when Plymouth Argyle played host to Santos FC as part of the Brazilian club's European tour." Very POV, and sounds like a sports reporter. Suggest mostly delete.
 * "amongst" → "among"
 * Construction and early years
 * As an example of the heavy copyediting which I feel is needed throughout the article, take this sentence: "In 1901 the Argyle Athletic Club obtained a lease on the ground, which was at the time an oval-shaped bowl with a cinder track and the surrounding land was made up of allotments and farmland." The essential information can be conveyed much more succinctly " "In 1901 the Argyle Athletic Club obtained a lease on the ground, then an oval-shaped bowl and cinder track surrounded by allotments and farmland." I'm not going to point out every sentence that needs surgery, though I may highlight examples. The need, however, is for a competent copyeditor to go through and polish the prose vigorously.
 * "Plymouth Argyle became professional in 1903..." You need to precede this statement with something that states explicitly when the club was founded.
 * "In addition to that, a roof was erected along with the main entrance at the Devonport End of the ground." Non-encyclopedic language ("In addition to that", "along with") Also, what was the roof erected over?
 * "grandstand" does not have a capital G. I've altered some, please check for others.
 * "...with many of these facilities reportedly being built with funds raised by the supporters club." Uncited assertion on which I have placed a "fact" tag.
 * "43,596 packed in to Home Park to watch the club play out a 2–2 draw..." The wording is again that of a sports report, and the following sentence ("Long-serving Scottish player Sammy Black, and compatriot Jack Connor scored the goals for Argyle") is decidely off-subject - the article is about the ground, not the club.
 * "...until normality was put on hold by the outbreak of war in 1939, which would change the city of Plymouth forever." Inappropriate soliloquising in an encyclopedia article about a football ground, suggest you omit it.
 * Wartime: What is the source of the text in this section? The two references [16] and [17] are respectively to a results summary and a captionless photograph. The photo is useless as a source unless it is independently described.
 * Resurgam?: where on earth did that title come from? Inappropriate, any way ("I will rise again"), and why expect your readers to know Latin? I've not gone through this section line by line, but in general there is too much focus on the team and the postwar Football League structure. Most of these details shold be eliminated.
 * Other issues: I haven't looked at the prose in the second part of the article, but I noticed that your first three External links are all cited as references in the article, so should not be listed as "external links".

Plenty of work to do, then preferably with the assistance of an indepoendent copyeditor. I'll be willing to look at the rest in more detail when you have addressed the above points. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC) ''I've addressed what I can. I think the general content of the article is fairly even. You have to understand that there is not an awful lot of information available on what the ground was like before the war. I summarised it as best I could and limited what I put in the post-war sections to ensure that recentism isn't apparent. However I have just noticed a couple of sentances in the 2001 redevelopment section which are slanted toward the history of the club instead of the ground, so I will address that shortly.

''I appreciate the feedback and would welcome an indepedant copyedit from someone to ensure the article is presented 100% correctly. At the end of the day I am human, so mistakes will creep in from time to time. Regards.'' Argyle 4 Life (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)