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 by User:SandyGeorgia 18:12, 13 September 2008 [1].

---

Old Trafford[edit]

Nominator(s): – PeeJay

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe the article meets the FAC criteria. First, the article covers the subject in a comprehensive manner, and the prose is written in a professional and engaging style, as well as being unbiased. All facts in the article that could be contested have been referenced using inline references. The article is also subject to no more vandalism than would be expected of an article related to one of the biggest football clubs in the world.

The article has a lead section of reasonable length, as compared to the overall length of the article, and summarises the article in a concise fashion. The table of contents contains just eight items, and the article is divided into sections of suitable length and related content. Finally, the article contains several appropriate images, all of which have correct licensing information and, in the case of non-free images, Fair Use rationales.

Please leave as many comments as you wish (although I wouldn't mind a few "Support" votes without need for changes to the article), and I will make every effort to respond to your comments as soon as possible. Thanks. – PeeJay 07:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. WP:FAC, my emphasis. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Any reason why Old Trafford should not be a disambiguation page? =Nichalp «Talk»=

I believe that the article was moved to Old Trafford from Old Trafford (football ground) with the reasoning that, when referring to "Old Trafford", the overwhelming majority of people would probably think first of the football ground, followed by the cricket ground, and then the area of Manchester. I saw no reason to disagree with that line of thought, and so the article remained where it is. – PeeJay 08:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's fine, per WP:PRIME --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment Image:Oldtraffordaverageattendances.png needs a link to the licence or an OTRS ticket Fasach Nua (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the image with an alternative that is definitely free as I created it myself. – PeeJay 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt really a FA comment, but the capacity could be plotted on the graph too, I think the attendence data on its own can be slightly misleading, 30,000 people in a 31,000 stadium, in my opinion is more significant than 40,000 in an 80,000 capacity stadium. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by User:Dweller

Needs a third-party copy-edit. Some examples of things I spotted:

• OT is not "behind" Wembley
  • Reworded.
• Nor is OT "outside of football" (or inside of it for that matter)
  • Reworded.
• "However, further investment of approximately £30,000 would have been required" implies building an 80K capacity cost £0
  • Reworded.
• Lack of referencing in parag opening "Prior to the construction..."
  • Referenced.
• OR alert: sentence starting "At the ground's present capacity of 76,212,"
  • Removed. Completely missed that one myself *eep*
• "a roof was added to the United Road stand for the first time" made me realise no mention's been made of the various stands. Name them when you state they were built, and explain their names.
  • A description of each stand is included in the "Structure and facilities" section, but I have now added notes in parentheses to the first mention of each stand in order to identify them by their current names.
• "The War Commission" wassat?
  • Linked.
• Cite use of Maine Rd
  • Cited.
• Parag opening "The 1970s" is a single sentence parag. Also, it needs multiple referencing for some big claims, even if they're from same source
  • Merged into previous paragraph and referenced rise of hooliganism in the 1970s.
• Parag opening "The Old Trafford pitch" entirely unsourced
  • To be honest, it's tough to find sources for the actual structure of Old Trafford. The section about the stadium on the club's official website is utter rubbish (although I have used the Seating Plan page to cite the fact that there are four stands, and the number of tiers in each), and most other sources are blogsites, and therefore unusable.
• "megastore" or "Megastore"?
  • Fixed.

etc Sorry, cos this is a fine piece of work and not far off FA quality. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. I wonder if you wouldn't mind listing a few more complaints so that I can deal with those too. Cheers. – PeeJay 14:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Won't be able to get back here before Monday at soonest, but really a third party copyedit from someone not already snowed under (ie not me) should pick up most of these irritating detractions from a first-rate article --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jameboy (talk · contribs)

Some comments around the images:

• Why are the images at the top of the article large and those near the bottom small? Should the standard "thumb" parameter not be applied, with numbers of pixels removed?
  • Done.
• "The area indicated by dotted lines is the section designated for away fans." I can't see this without clicking through to the image. Could you amend the image to shade or colour the away section?
  • Shaded the area and amended the caption to match.
• I don't find the average attendances graph very useful in its current form. Having values for every point on the graph is distracting and makes it a bit busy. Could you make the line slightly thicker? And wouldn't a red line rather than orange be more fitting (although not essential)? In this case it may also be worth expanding the image slightly for clarity, even if it meant overriding the default number of pixels of the "thumb" parameter. I'm assuming that those viewing the graph within the context of the article would merely be interested in the trend (while those interested in the detail would click through), but on my monitor at least, the trend is hard to see without putting my face near the screen due to the value labels cluttering it up. The x-axis also quite busy - could you make the x-axis labels (say) every two years instead of every year? --Jameboy (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the values for each point on the graph, thickened the trend line and changed it to red, but I haven't increased the size of the image yet, as I think it would be best to see how it looks with the modifications at the same size first. – PeeJay 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those all look fine now, much clearer - good work. The graph seems clear enough now without further re-sizing. I'll have a proper read through when I get a chance before deciding whether to support or not. --Jameboy (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources? I read the Peer Review, and still have concerns about these.
  • http://www.englandfootballonline.com/index.html
    • This site has an extensive list of sources, the first page of which can be found here. – PeeJay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You mean you're not satisfied by nine pages of sources? – PeeJay 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If a self-published hobby site lists reliable sources, you can go directly to those reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.munich58.co.uk/memorials/plaque/index.asp
    • If I removed this source from the article, would it make that much difference. I mean, do I really need to reference the fact that the Munich clock is in the south-east corner of the stadium? – PeeJay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably not, honestly. Although you never know what some folks will find controversial. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Regardless, I've found a new source now. – PeeJay 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.red11.org/index.html
  • http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/index1.htm
    • I'm getting really frustrated with the information that the above two references deal with. It is so difficult to find this information anywhere, so I've been reduced to using sites that might not be 100% reliable for my info. The club's official stats site could help, but it does not specifically list record lowest attendances or average attendances, so I would have to reference each season individually. – PeeJay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • • To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
          • Not necessary now that I've found a reference that is definitely reliable. – PeeJay 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've referenced the appropriate seasons, but there's no comparison with other seasons/matches on the pages I've referenced. Nevertheless, this will have to do. – PeeJay 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have those two sources been dealt with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the offending references have been replaced. – PeeJay 07:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 25 (Alfred McAlpine...) is still in all capitals.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

• "Second only to Wembley Stadium, Old Trafford has one of the largest capacities of any English football stadium at just over 76,000, and is the only UEFA 5-star rated facility in England."
  • You say its the second biggest stadium in England and then say one of the largest stadiums. Secondly I would change "over 76,000" to the exact capacity; there's no reason to be inexact in the lead and expect someone to go searching for its capacity. I would reword this sentence.
    • Out of interest, what would you suggest that I change the wording of the sentence to? I agree that the exact capacity should be used, but other than that, the wording seems fine.
      • I would suggest anything that removes one of "second only" and "one of the largest capacities", something along the lines of "With a capacity of 76,212, Old Trafford the second largest football stadium in England behind only Wembley Stadium, and is the only UEFA 5-star rated facility in England." Peanut4 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, with a slight modification, as "largest" might be construed as referring to the stadium's size, rather than its capacity. – PeeJay 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're very correct with that change, but my only concern with that is you use "capacity" twice in the same sentence. Peanut4 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • How about the latest revision? Seems a bit wordy to me, but it looks OK. – PeeJay 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're right it is a bit wordy, but otherwise everything is fine, how about "With 76,212 seats"? Peanut4 (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The problem with that is that a certain amount of the stadium's capacity is taken up by spectators in executive boxes, which may not have precisely the number of seats that each room is designed for. How about "With space for 76,212 spectators"? – PeeJay 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sounds good.
• I think a source for the information on Image:Oldtraffordaverageattendances.png needs to be added.
  • Sourced on the image page.
• All my other concerns were addressed at the peer review. Peanut4 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Peanut. You've helped a lot. – PeeJay 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All my concerns were addressed at the peer review stage, with a couple of minor other issues now brought up also fixed. Peanut4 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've made a few changes to eliminate redundancy and to tidy the prose. Please be careful not to over use expressions like this meant that, located in , as well as and also. Well done. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I agree whit GrahamColm. The article is good!--Andrea 93 (msg) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support my issues have bee resolved and the article is looking a lot better, now following all necessary criteria.
  • The above support is from Domiy.[2]

due to mainly POV and other issues. Please note that the word 'famous' is blatantly an issue of WP:POV. It may be great, it may be well known etc, but an encyclopedia is not there to make assumptions and call something 'famous' based on somebody's point of view. Remove this word from the Busby picture caption and this statement - Perhaps the most famous stand at Old Trafford is the West Stand, also known as the Stretford End. Also search for this throughout the article, I have briefly found a few more sentences with words like 'great'. You have to make it sound more formal and neutral.

• • Done. – PeeJay 11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think its worth mentioning quickly that Man U are one of the most succesful football clubs in England. As much as a Chelsea fan as I am (although not an Englishmen!), it's still definitely an obvious figure that Man U are just about the most succesful club in England. So, you could just mention this when you say "Old Trafford is the home of Man U".
  • It may be obvious to a football fan, but this article has to assume that the reader knows nothing about the subject. Therefore, it seems appropriate to mention a little bit of background about the stadium's tenants. – PeeJay 11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As per WP:lead, I don't think this meets the correct structure. Ensure that you explain most of the upcoming info within the first lead section. I see nothing in there about past/future construction and display, the stadium's notable history either. I also think it's worth mentioning a quick notable record or transport surrounding in the lead.
  • Done. – PeeJay 11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The History section could do with subheadings.
  • Done, although perhaps the subheadings could do with renaming or even repositioning. – PeeJay 11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no information about the bombings during the World War. This is bought up in the lead and is perceived as a main historic significance behind the stadium's past, but instead it is only mentioned once in the article again. This needs to be expanded upon I think. Clearly doesn't follow content criteria.
  • There really is not that much to say about the bombing of Old Trafford. The ground was bombed, leaving it unusable for nearly 10 years, so United had to use Maine Road in the meantime. The club then got some compensation from the government and the ground was built back up again. Like I said, there's bugger all to say about it, so I think the amount that I wrote about it in the article is appropriate. – PeeJay 11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I had an article opposed and failed over the use of a stadium's picture just like you have used. Even though it had the perfectly correct tag (the same as the Old Trafford main image one) and had relevant author information, my nomination was treated against opposition for the use of possible copyright issues. This is almost exactly the same, the same issues can clearly be drawn from this. I know it doesnt sound fair, but I've had to deal with that on all 3 occasions since my nomination failed when it was perfectly fine. Domiy (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • To be honest, it's a bit unfair that you would use the fact that your FAC nomination was opposed as a reason to oppose this one. I suggest you reconsider this reason, and probably withdraw it. I have now dealt with your suggestions, and I hope I've now done enough to earn your support. But please, don't let the rejection of Croatia national football team become a reason for you to oppose other people's FAC nominations. – PeeJay 11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Here's an important one, and a well-written one at that. Graham gave this a great copy-edit. Let's give it a good run-through to tighten the prose even further.

• History, Construction and early years: "Bradford won 1-0, the goal scored by Jimmy Spiers, watched by 58,000 people." I don't really like the flow of this. It feels like "in a game" could be added after the second comma.
• Found two FA Cup links in the section. The second one can be removed.
• Rare photo complaint from me: The Stretford end image from 1992 has a note in the description that says "use it free". To make things more confusing, this is a public domain image. Images that are restricted like this go against WP:IUP. Can an image expert be consulted for this?
  • To be honest, I'm surprised that User:Fasach Nua didn't notice that one. I'll see if I can get an image expert to comment on it. – PeeJay 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wartime bombing: "Such an undertaking would serve to increase the atmosphere within the ground by containing the crowd's noise within the ground and focus it onto the pitch, where the players would feel the full effects of a capacity crowd." I'd remove the second "within the ground" and make a change to "focusing", thereby fixing the tense of the sentence.
• Conversion to all-seater: "This forced redevelopment, including the removal of the terraces at the front of the other three stands, reduced the club's capacity to an all-time low of about 44,000." Either change reduced to reducing or add which before reduced. Another tense issue.
  • Changing it to either "reducing" or "which reduced" would not make sense. The sentence, without the clause, should read "This forced redevelopment reduced the stadium's capacity to an all-time low of about 44,000." (And yes, I realise that I changed the word "club" for "stadium" mid-way through). – PeeJay 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Misread this. Oops. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Structure and facilities: "The store moved to temporary accommodation opposite the East Stand...". Perhaps "The store was temporarily moved opposite the East Stand..."
• Repeat links for Munich air disaster and Denis Law in this section.
• "with a few metres run-off space on each side." Should this be "of run-off space", or is this another instance of British English, which I can never figure out?
  • It is possibly an instance of British English, although it could just be me writing it the way it sounded in my head. Could "a few metres' run-off space..." be correct as well? – PeeJay 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your usage doesn't make sense PJ, the metres don't process the run-off space. I think either would work. Without the "of" my be a bit more "proper" though. Then again, I'm no English professor. Calebrw (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either way, it now says "a few metres of run-off space". – PeeJay 07:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Future: "almost as much as has already spent on the stadium in the last fourteen years." Two things. Fourteen should be changed to 14, to match the number usage in the rest of the article. Also, has this sentence been missing something? :-) A fifty later in the section.
• Other uses: Play-off doesn't agree with playoff from the lead. For consistency's sake, one should be adjusted.

That's it from me for the whole article. I normally don't make it through a fairly large article in one pass, which by itself tells me that the prose is FA-quality. Please handle the sourcing concerns and get the images reviewed, so I can fully support this, after handling these of course. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I do believe it should be non-hyphenated: playoff, not play-offs. Just me though. Calebrw (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All instances of "play-off" have been replaced with "playoff". Furthermore, all of Giants2008's comments that I did not reply to directly above have been resolved. – PeeJay 07:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, dude. I'll get that image looked at ASAP. – PeeJay 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a note at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Image:Stretford end 1992.JPG, and the reply was that the licensing seems fine. To be honest, I don't see what's wrong with it. The uploader has decided to release the image to the public domain, and I think that their comment in the image description is just reinforcing the fact that it can now be used freely. – PeeJay 09:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, please resolve questions about the reliability of the sources used (above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking again, AFAICT, Englandfootballonline.com is still used in the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wider community has accepted englandfootballonline.com as a reliable source, particularly given the list of its myriad sources. I will attempt to find an alternative reference, but I see no reason why the use of that site as a source should detract from this FAC nomination. – PeeJay 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see the sourcing issues addressed here, I don't see explanations of why/how the source meets WP:SPS, I don't see examples such as given at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, and I don't see a post about the source at WP:RSN. Editors supporting the article have many options for explaiing how the site conforms to WP:SPS, or the question can be taken to WP:RSN, or the sources cited in the hobby site could be used to cite our article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No matter, I've replaced the references in question now. Please feel free to pass the article at any time. Is it still the case that four unopposed supports are enough to pass an article? – PeeJay 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support following resolution of comments on article talk and on this page. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing today. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC) New comments:[reply]

• "It is also commonly referred to as "K Stand"" Why?
  • Explained in the article, though I'll bet it could do with a reference. – PeeJay 10:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Dweller (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Status on Dweller's oppose ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Graham copy-edited this before, as Dweller had requested. My issues are taken care of, and the various edits since then have helped as well. Top-class article overall. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.