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 not promoted by Karanacs 19:19, 29 December 2009 [1].

---

Qwest Field[edit]

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Qwest Field/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Qwest Field/archive2

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is one of the best stadium articles I have seen. Specifically, I like how the balance between construction and different types of events has turned out. I am also happy with the images. With so many edits, I am of course biased and would love any feedback.Cptnono (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be blaming any mistakes on people working on the page before me ;). This is great: Seeing even more things getting fixed is awesome! (13 edits from three different editors in only a couple of hours. Thanks and nice work.) Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retart, previous nom, images and dabs cleared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.soundersfc.com/media-library/Videos/Features/2009/03-March/090312-Public-Stadium-Authority.aspx a reliable source?

The Sounders video is almost primary. Made sure not to use fluffy words. The interview (which I can't find reprinted as a transcript anywhere else) is by Tony Ventrella (sportscaster in the area [2]) Current work with HLN (TV channel) and KONG (TV)/KING-TV used to be with KIRO-TV and KCPQ. The guy being interviewed is the Public Stadium Authority chairman. Reformatting ref.

I'll leave this one in for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment very close to supporting per my comments on the previous nom. However, while the reference mentioned above is perfectly suitable for uses a and b (non-controversial, relevant and unlikely to be covered by third-party sources), a secondary source should be used for the claim that Qwest Field was the first stadium to use LED signage. WFCforLife (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, I can't find info on the "crown" anywhere else (too boring?). I removed the LED line since it is trivial and a claim not supported by other sources.Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, citations need cleanup, see my sample edits. Incorrect use of WP:ITALICS and incorrect names on publishers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How did they move (once) in two different years, and not play there until the year later?

The Seahawks moved to Husky Stadium during the new stadium's construction in 2000 and 2001. Their first game at the new facility was a 28–10 preseason loss to the Indianapolis Colts on August 11, 2002.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2001 season ended on January 6, 2002. They didn't take the field again until the '02 preseason. I'll add "seasons" to '00 and '01. They moved from the Kingdome so I changed it to "played at".Cptnono (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A great article. Read the article, and liked what I read. Didn't go over the minutiae of it, but if others who do find that here all is well, then I support the promotion of this article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Supported this before the restart, but I'm concerned about Tony's repeated comments that a third-party copy-edit was needed. Has copy-editing been done yet? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not "independent" as he mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: there were two Tonys by the way. I have grabbed everything Tonythetiger has asked for. This is a different (better) article because of him. That initial FAC wasn't supposed to be a peer review so, despite my initial confusion, the restart is not a terrible idea at all. Tony1 has a great background but I question some of what he pointed out. A few of the things were invaluable, though. Besides those two, SandyGeorgia pointed to a few examples which I worked with, Skotywa just pointed out several quick grabs, a bot did a couple caps in reference templates, and there were a couple tweaks by others.Cptnono (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentSupport - Some things I found as I read the article from start to finish...

• The design comprises of two distinctive arched roofs spanning the length of the stadium. - awkward sentence

"The roof, at 210,000 sq ft (20,000 m²), covers most of the east and west seating sections. In total, 70% of the seats are covered." ?

• I'm not saying rewrite it, I'm saying that "comprises of" is awkward. Would "is comprised of" be better perhaps? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The roof utilizes a damper system that disconnects it from the support pylons so it is able to slide independently of the structure in the event of an earthquake. - awkward sentence

I honestly couldn't fugure out a way to write it. One source says it resembles two clamshells but I thought that soundeded silly. I just redid it this way.. Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"To minimize damage in the event of an earthquake, the roof utilizes a friction pendulum damper system. This disconnects the roof from the support pylons so it can move independently of the structure." (there is no Wikipeida for this type of damper system so I added the type for an engineering junkies and a simple explanation for the rest of us)

• This just felt like a run-on sentence. No need to rewrite it, just break it up, add some commas, or something.

I agree. I can remove the type of damper system but I think it is cool info.

This system has been used at the base of small buildings and in some bridges, but this is world’s first use in a large-scale roof. needs to be paraphrased. It appears word-for-word in the source.

Found a wikilink for the previous line and adjusted to "The technology had never been applied to a large-scale roof until construction of the stadium."

• Instead of being rounded, the ends of the field were squared to allow be a regulation size. - awkward sentence

• "The lower bowl was constructed to fit a larger pitch."

• "to allow be a regulation size" is awkward. Would "to allow it to be a a regulation size" be what you were going for?

Ug...grammerer bad. I did mean it to be (do'h). I kind of like the new wording, though. It makes more sense mentioning the construction of the bowl. "The lower bowl was constructed to fit a larger pitch by squaring the ends." Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Seahawks' Josh Brown, who has adjusted to the problem, believes other kickers experience problems due to the moisture in the air. - he no longer plays for the Hawks.

"A former Seahawks' kicker, Josh Brown, had adjusted to the problem. He believed other kickers experienced problems due to the moisture in the air."

That's better. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Seahawks", "Sounders (USL)", and "Sounders FC" sections should have main article links I think.

Can't link them in the section headers per MoS but duplicated the wikilinks in the first mention of the sections for better navigation.

Sorry, when I said "main article links" I meant that ((Main)) or ((Seealso)) should be used just below the section header. If you make that change, then the wikilinks in the prose should be reverted. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Chose "see also" template after reading their descriptions.Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Qwest Field Events Center was built adjacent to the stadium for $44 million. - this is duplicate infromation from earlier in the article

Removed the second instance.

Good. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commuter rail running between Tacoma and Everett also operates every Sunday Seahawks game with service to nearby King Street Station. - awkward sentence

Broke it up "Seattle's King Street Station is near the stadium. It is serviced by regional commuter rail. Trains operate on Sundays if the Seahawks have a home game."

Better. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. Overall, the article is complete in it's coverage of the topic. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 08:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Interesting read, now meets all the criteria. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note A couple editors have gone through recently. Some type-os were grabbed. Images were all right aligned. I'll be without internet until the 22nd and unable to respond to any feedback.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One thing that isn't particularly clear is where the Seahawks played before, and why a new stadium was considered necessary. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Seahawks played in the Kingdome before. The owner said they couldn't be profitable until they left. I included this in the Seahawks section. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strafpeloton2 has done some good work on the tone, grammar, and a few other tweaks over the last few days. Awsome stuff, Strafpeloton2.Cptnono (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been hanging around for a looooooong time. The writing is not good enough. Oppose.
• Why are some of the highly detailed pics at thumbnail size? Try 240px.

• Such a change isn't necessarily supported by the MoS. Thumbnails keep the images from overwhelming the prose and fit.

• Spot-check of the writing:
  • "Allen rejected plans for a retractable roof so that the stadium was open to the elements, provided views, and reduced costs." Ambiguous: was it the rejection that did this, or would failure to have rejected done it? And the stadium "reduced costs"?
  • "Covers the majority of the ...". Then within two seconds we have to read that it was 70%. Let me think ... is that a majority?
  • "Utilized"—I still can't fathom why people use such an ugly word. What is wrong with "used"? Twice within two seconds. And we have ize ize ize in three consecutive sentences as well.
  • Telegram language: "until construction of the stadium". If you can't bear "the", try "until the stadium was constructed".
  • "To reduce costs, the exterior was not completed with brick or ornate steel work." Sorry, I missed it: that was in the plan, or it would be considered standard practice?
  • There's the ugly duckling again: "The product utilizes". Erk. Use, consists of, comprises, includes, is based on ...?
  • Noun plus -ing clunky ungrammatical sentence: "The field was replaced in the spring of 2008 due to safety concerns caused by the sand and rubber becoming compressed and due to the color of the field fading." See my tutorial on fixing this. Tony (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you have mentioned some pretty trivial stuff. A couple great points both times, though. I agree with you on the repetition of "utilize" being a problem. I grabbed some of the utilyzes and tweaked the retractable roof and compression bits.Cptnono (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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