Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

All you want to know about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegate, SandyGeorgia—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

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.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents
Shortcut:
WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the "initiate the nomination" link (for first nominations) or the "leave comments" link (for subsequent nominations). If there was a previous nomination, you will see a link to "previous FAC"; leave that link untouched. If you encounter an unarchived, older nomination at this page, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance in moving and archiving the previous nomination.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Copy this text:{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}}, and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and opposing

Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page).
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics are discouraged (for example, Y Done or N Not done), as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Contents

Nominations

4chan

Nominator(s): Giggy (talk)


I've been working on and off on this one for a few months, and I think it's now the best it's going to get—and thus, of an FA standard. It's an interesting topic; a notorious website that incidentally produces a fair bit of vandalism around here. Obviously, the amount of information in reliable sources was not excessive, but I've done what I could with the information available. There's a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/4chan/archive1 with source comments by Ealdgyth and a great prose review from Dabomb87, so thanks to both. Thanks also to everyone who takes a look and comments here. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by jimfbleak 4chan was started in 2003 in the bedroom of "moot", a 15 year old from New York City. later moot grew up in suburban New York City and started 4chan in his bedroom in 2003. Doesn't need saying twice. "moot" heading - is the lc deliberate? jimfbleak (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, fixed that issue up. The lowercase on "moot" is deliberate; all uses of his name on the Internet are lowercased. Giggy (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Murray

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S.


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. It has been passed as GA, and also A-class by the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Military history. I'm open to any further comments on improvement, thanks Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • What leads me to believe that this particular site is reliable is that all of the main facts presented in it are supported by other sources I have. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Nice job. The article, however, seems to omit the details of his various awards. I don't mean full details, but something more than "he was given this, he was given that." For example, perhaps something along the lines of this change:
    • "During his service with the Americans, the commander of the 27th, Major General John F. O'Ryan, recommended Murray for the United States' Distinguished Service Medal.
    • During his service with the Americans, Murray was recommended for the United States' Distinguished Service Medal by the commander of the 27th, Major General John F. O'Ryan. The D.S.M. is the highest non-valorous military and civilian decoration of the U.S. military. General O'Ryan's recommendation stated that Murray's "...knowledge, activity and fearlessness... assisted materially in the control of the attacking forces".
  • I have expanded the information further; mainly I just added what you wrote, with only slight re-wording. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have also now expanded on his Distinguished Conduct Medal and Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George awards; I think the others were already adequate, if not I'll have a look at them too. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The WP:LEAD, on the other hand, seems a mite long. I'll think about this for a while and get back to you...
  • I agree, and have thought so since I wrote it. I'll see if I can condense it a bit. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have now condensed the lead some what now, and think it should be right. If not, I can have another look and reduce it further. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • PS Your {{Harvnb}}s aren't playing well with your {{Citation}}s. Links don't work, since the former is linking to CITEREFFrankiSlatyer2003 and the latter to CITEREF_Franki_Slatyer_2003. Will look into this. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fauna of Scotland

Nominator(s): Ben MacDui


Fear not faint-hearts. Fauna of Scotland may be nominated by the notoriously average Ben MacDui but it has been copy edited by a person of good standing, and peer reviewed by more than one editor of repute. The deficiencies remain those of the nominator, whose knowledge of creepy-crawlies may be deficient and whose meanderings into fringe theories may provoke concern, but who nonetheless humbly submits this Good Article for your consideration. Ben MacDui 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments - you may run into problems with the ToC. Putting it in such a manner disrupts may subheadings, which causes problems. Also, the red deer stag image shouldn't be directly above a formatting on the left, as it causes strange alterations and splits the text. Move it to the right and in the below section. You put the "corvus" latin name in parenthesis but not "Tetrao urogallus". "Upogebia deltaura, a mud lobster that is commonly found in Scottish maerl beds" could be shortly by removing "that is". Also, captions shouldn't be in proper sentences. "Adder" image should probably be up and to the right to avoid formatting problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia has kindly fixed the ToC and the red deer image.
Caper latin name fixed.
"that is" removed
According to MOS, sentences in captions are occasionally allowed. The beast is just an example and does not appear in the text - I think it deserves a brief description. I've removed the period, although I am not sure this is correct.
Adder moved. Ben MacDui 09:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I did not realize I was an editor of repute, but I did peer review this article and felt it was essentially at FAC quality then. It has since been improved and my only suggestion is to change the current link to fox to either Vulpes, or perhaps better to Vulpes vulpes. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks and fox dab done. Ben MacDui 09:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC) (PS I did not specify the precise nature of your reputation.....)
  • Image check
  • Image:GoldenEagle2.jpg Where does it say that this pic is pd?
Well, when I read "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification" I tend to take it at face value, but what do I know? I see it is now up for deletion. There really isn't a decent replacement on Commons. I will look for an alternative asap. Now done. Ben MacDui 10:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the problem as I would assume it was the original uploader, but I am not an image attorney. the image opposite
is an alternative if need be.

Otherwise pretty good. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Also [1] is a dead link. Couple of others were blueGreen coded and I didn't bother to check those. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
BCS link fixed.
I have looked at the others and I am not sure why the bot is grumbling. They look fine to me. Ben MacDui 10:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by User:Ling.Nut:

  • cSACs, or SACs?
  • "populations of waders". Sure, it's obvious that a wader is a wading seabird. But could it perhaps be made more obvious? Ditto for Mustelidae, commonly referred to as the weasel family.
Done Ben MacDui 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • opinion only: the deer in Image:Red-deer-glen-cristie.jpg is just a vaguely deer-shaped blotch in my browser/monitor/personal settings. I put Image:LandseerMonarch1851.JPG in and pressed the preview button, and it came out looking quite purty indeed. Is there some unspoken FAC rule that prevents the use of paintings instead of photos? Did I miss a memo somewhere?
It just looks a bit hackneyed to me, but I've replaced the blob with it. Ben MacDui 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Scottish Natural Heritage plan" is that a typo, or is that a case where our European friends consider things mass/group nouns where us feckless and shoeless 'Murcans don't?
Well I read it as "They plan" rather than "It plans". Ben MacDui 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Things to consider possibly putting in the WP:LEAD:
    • Any details at all about endangered/threatened/at risk status. See forex
      • the red/amber/green lists for birds
      • the fact that red squirrels are endangered is only mentioned in a note;
      • "Scotland's marine life could be almost wiped out within 50 years unless tough action is taken to manage the way humans use the seas".... etc.
    • at least a phrase or a clause about extinctions and reintroductions.. in fact, go through every major section of the article and see if it gets mentioned in the WP:LEAD, which is supposed to be a summary of the whole article...well, I dunno, you might skip the Cryptozoology section, since it might seem a little touristy to mention Nessie in the lead. But don't take it out of the article.  ;-)
    • The lead is so broad and general, it borders on being underinformative. I would suggest adding one or two specific details of animals that are unique/notable in Scotland .. you choose the ones that seem best... for example maybe (you pick! don't mechanically follow my suggestions just because I'm an accursed FAC reviewer!):
      • "The Moray Firth colony of about 100 Bottlenose Dolphins is the most northerly in the world" or whatever.
      • "Although many species of butterfly are in decline in the UK, recent research suggests that some, such as the Pearl-bordered Fritillary, Marsh Fritillary and Chequered Skipper, which are becoming rare in the rest of the UK, are moving north into Scotland in response to climate change"
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this at GA (CoI), and it's improved since then. When shall we see its like again? jimfbleak (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed. I hear Raptors of Scotland calling from afar. I'll be in touch if I can raise the cash for a telephoto lens. Ben MacDui 10:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Nice work. I would prefer a photo of a Red Deer over the painting, but other than that all is well. Dincher (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Discography of Final Fantasy VII

Nominator(s): PresN (talk)


Hi, long time listener, fist time caller. I'm trying here...something new, unfortunately. This, if it passes, will be the first "discography" article to be an FA rather than an FL. The reason that it is here is because most "discography" articles are a series of tables, whereas this article is a whole mess of text, structured as an article, with the only tables being collapsed tracklists.

The article is a current and recent GA, and has a completed peer review here. The article does not use date-linking in the article itself, to save on bluelinks, but does use them for consistency in the references, as 'cite web' links dates. Said references have been looked over by me to ensure they have all of the data required/possible. There is a single image in the article, used in a similar vein as a box cover or album cover would be used in a video game or album article, and has a single music clip, used to demonstrate the "MIDI" sound used in the original soundtrack rather than traditional cd-quality audio. All other fair use media has been removed.

Ealdgyth posted his usual reference questions at the PR, so I will answer them here to preempt any re-asking.

Whew. That's a long nomination, but I think (hope) that I've covered all of the bases. With that said, have at it! I'll be standing by to respond to any concerns. --PresN (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

comment more appropriate venue may be Wikipedia:Featured list candidates Fasach Nua (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's an article. Giggy (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A few quick comments from Giggy

  • "He did, however, find the tracks to be "beautiful"" - why the however? It's not contradicting anything prior.
    • Reworded that sentence.
  • "who while feeling that the soundtrack to Final Fantasy VI was better," - is fear the best choice of word?
    • Umm...there's no 'fear' in that sentence.
  • "and saying that "depending on how willing you are to spend money" they made the album worth purchasing" - not inherently a positive comment.... maybe change the context it's presented in.
    • Reworked sentence; it's not supposed to be entirely positive, he's saying that the other tracks are fluff, so it whether you want to spend that much money on three really good tracks.
  • Possibly just refer to reviewers by surname after you've named them in full once?
    • Why not, done.

Giggy (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • All concerns addressed. --PresN (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Omaha, Nebraska

Nominator(s): • Freechild'sup?


I'm nominating this article for featured article because several editors have completed the archived peer review and assisted the article in meeting each of the criteria for FA status. • Freechild'sup? 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments I should have mentioned these things ages ago, but I held off because I thought they were excessively nit-picky (but if there's a place where that would be appropriate, it's here):
    • References should use citation templates (cite web, cite book, cite news, etc.)
    • I can't distill this down to a concrete suggestion, but whenever I read the this article, I get the feeling that it sometimes misses the forest for the trees; that is, while it has lots and lots of sourced information, some of the information (nearly all of which exists in sub-articles) could be removed and replaced with text that creates a better narrative. If this feeling is restricted to me, then ignore this suggestion; if not, it'll require a stronger copyediting hand than mine. – Swid (talk · edits) 16:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • No specific citation method or template is required; WP:WIAFA calls for consistent citations, regardless of method used to generate them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment:
  • I don't believe that citation templates are necessary in an FA. Consistent citation style is necessary.
  • I scanned through the article and notice entire paragraphs without any citations. This must be amended immediately. --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments by D.M.N. (talk · contribs)
    • Several links are dead according to Checklinks tool.
      • Fixed. Only 2 legitmate links to dab pages remain. - Icewedge (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Several links go to disambig pages. It'd be better if they went to exact articles to help with accessibility.
    • D.M.N. (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose by Epicadam (talk · contribs)

  • Besides the problems with the references that are invalid (404s and other missing pages), and that some are missing publishing info and access date, what makes the following sources reliable?
  • The prose is just not good in general. There are grammar issues, the text doesn't flow very well, and the body of the article is organized in a haphazard manner. As another reviewer said above, the article is certainly loaded with facts but the article does not, in my opinion, provide a good overall summary of Omaha.
  • Sourcing in areas is quite thin. In some places, including whole paragraphs, assertions and hard facts go without references. This certainly needs to be corrected.
  • Various MoS problems. However, given the more serious overall problems with the article, technical and style problems are the least of this article's concerns.
  • FYI, I understand your concerns about the reliability of several of the citations mentioned above. By way of noting it, Andreas' History... was published in 1882, and is widely respected and cited source material. Additionally, if there are additional concerns beyond these few citations ("more serious overall problems"), could you please be specific? Thanks. • Freechild'sup? 07:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I replaced each of the aforementioned links. • Freechild'sup? 08:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend this article for a more thorough peer review first, followed by a run through WP:GAN, which is a good way to make sure that the article's content is in order and the sources check out. Best, epicAdam(talk) 00:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Epicadam (talk · contribs): Even though FAC is more of a judgment than a peer review, since the editor has requested more details as to what style and technical problems I have with the article, here are some more overall concerns and my thoughts on the lead:

  • Please check out the guidelines at WP:USCITY to determine the appropriate section order and content for city articles. While following guidelines are not specifically required, those guidelines were developed as a community to make sure that city articles provide readers with as much pertinent information as possible and didn't develop into a dustbin of random facts and trivia. Following the guidelines there will also help cut down on the overuse of section headers and subheadings.
  • Prose should always be favored over lists of information. If the events in the "Major events" section are notable, they should be mentioned and included within a narrative prose.
  • "Metropolitan area" is literally a sentence, map and a table. The information about each individual community should not even be present here since the article is on Omaha itself, not its surrounding area. A sentence about the metro area's population, etc. would be sufficient in the demographics section.
  • Non-breaking spaces are needed between numbers and their units of measurement.
  • Lead issues:
    • There are many citations in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary, meaning that while some of information can be cited in the lead, especially if it's controversial, the vast majority of the information should be cited below in the article's actual prose.
    • "The stand-alone city is the nation's 42nd-largest" "stand-alone" means there are no others. Perhaps the word is "independent"? And if so, how is it an independent city if it's a county seat? Do the laws of the county not apply to its county seat?
    • "The city grew along the Missouri River, with the first settlement extending from the Lone Tree Ferry crossing from Kanesville, Iowa in the early 1850s." awkward. There's no context.
    • "Along with transportation and jobbing, early industries that were important to the city through the mid-20th century were its railroads, breweries, stockyards and meatpacking plants." Really poor prose. Better: "Railroads, breweries, stockyards, and meatpacking plants were Omaha's main industries in the mid-20th century." And really, why is this important? The information is provided but it's not clear why it's in the lead...
    • How does the third paragraph summarize the city? Surely the city is more than the corporations that are headquartered there, right? It's essentially just information that belongs in the economy section.
    • Sweeping phrases like "comprise important elements of the cultural background of Omaha", "have been lauded by numerous national newspapers", "music has always been important to the city", and "music scene being historically significant" mean absolutely nothing to the reader. Don't tell us that something is important, demonstrate its importance through examples.

Let me know if/when you take this article to peer review and I'd be happy to go through it more. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment are ISBNs optional? There are not present. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Two sections are simply lists; one section is an image; the prose is very far from sparkling or even engaging: "Two native sons who achieved prominence nationally were born in Omaha, with their families moving away shortly thereafter". I hate to sound literary, but there isn't much sense of flow to many sections. I'd like to commend the primary editors of this article on the obvious hard work they've done, but it just isn't far enough along in the development process to be an FA. It will get there at some point if its editors continue seeking outside input/help, but I suspect that time is not now. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)—A random spot check of the Notable residents section reveals these problems:

  • "Omaha is the historic and modern birthplace and home of notable politicians, actors, musicians, business leaders, sportsmen and cultural leaders."
  • "His son Peter Fonda also briefly lived in Omaha." Peter Fonda should be wikilinked. A rather awkward, stubby, sentence overall.
  • "Mrs. Brando had helped found the playhouse." This idea could be integrated into the sentence before the last.
  • "Tennis player Andy Roddick, former ATP ranking leader, was born in Omaha." a former ATP ranking leader.
  • "Omaha's rich musical history produced legends such as Wynonie Harris, Preston Love, Buddy Miles, Calvin Keys, Eugene McDaniels and others." Did the history actually produce these legends. Who's to say that Omaha's musical history is "rich"?
  • "Warren Buffett, in 2008 the richest man in the world, lives in Omaha where he made his fortune in business." Comma use and awkward phrasing: "in 2008 the richest man in the world"--> the richest man in the world as of 2008.
  • "Two native sons who achieved prominence nationally were born in Omaha, with their families moving away shortly thereafter." Who are these two native sons?
  • "Activist and son of a Baptist minister, Malcolm X, first known as Malcolm Little, was also born here." Switch around phrases here. Do we really need to know that Malcolm X's alternate name?
  • "Academy Award winner Henry Fonda also grew up in Omaha." Also is unnecessary.

I'm sorry, but I can't support or even remain neutral when there are so many problems in a small, 2-paragraph section. Please withdraw this nom and submit for a peer review, find people to copyedit the article, and then submit it to GAN before coming here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Brown (cricketer)

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it should meet the FA criteria. Another cog in the {{Invincibles Advert}} FT drive. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments I'll give it a c-e. Only big issue at first glance is the Lead is too chunky IMHO. Feel free to revert any of my foolishness. --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Blnguyen, Sandy, the c-e may take some time. I'm about to go off-wiki and can't see myself editing much again until Monday; I'd anticipate it'll take me a few days to get through it all, so middle of next week at earliest. Sorry. Happy for FAC to progress without me, so no O/S from me for now. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Brown captained Australia in one Test in March 1946, against New Zealand in a match that was retrospectively accredited.
I know what you mean but a lay reader may struggle.
  • A right-handed opening batsman, he and Jack Fingleton formed an opening pair in the 1930s that was regarded as one of the finest in Australian Test history.
Present tense ?
  • Brown had backed up too far and left his crease before the bowler
Should back up be linked ?
Especially as "backing up" actually means going forward.--Grahame (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • With steady performances, Brown forced his way into the Test team during the tour, batting at No. 3. With regular openers Bill Ponsford and Bill Woodfull retiring at the end of the tour,
Brown opened in all Tests of 1934 except the first.
  • The highlight of his tour was an unbeaten 206 in the Second Test at Lord's, which saved Australia from defeat.
I think the "which saved Australia from defeat" should come just after the 206.
Maybe: "He was notable for saving Australia from defeat in the Second Test at Lord's by scoring an unbeaten 206." --Grahame (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Cricket resumed in 1945–46 and Brown captained an Australian team to New Zealand, leading the team in a retrospectively accredited Test match in the absence of Don Bradman.
Split ?
I suggest "Cricket resumed in 1945–46 and Brown—in the absence of Don Bradman—captained an Australian team to New Zealand, leading the team in a retrospectively accredited Test match".--Grahame (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There are too many commas in the lead some of which are unnecessary. Tintin 09:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image comments
    • All images are public domain according to Australian law, all have date, author, source tags. One thing, though: Image:BillBrown1.jpg's use in the article is a rather pointless 'Bill Brown' caption. Perhaps move that image to the infobox for a full-body shot instead of the small mugshot? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments by User:Ling.Nut
    • I'm not sure that Image:Arthur Morris.jpg adds any value to the article. It also spills over into the following section, in my browser/monitor/personal settings. An image of Vinoo Mankad would be better (if available), since the next section focuses on him. Either way, though, Morris seems unnecessary.
    • "Brown was unable to perform to his previous standards he was ousted"... grammar.
    • I agree with User:Dweller that there are a few too many details in the WP:LEAD. For example,I hate to keep picking on Morris, but I don't think the lead needs to state who replaced Brown... and various other details can be trimmed. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Meshuggah

Nominator(s):  LYKANTROP  ✉
previous FAC (21:55, 25 August 2008)


This is an article about a Swedish experimental band. Since the first nomination I discussed and (hopefully) fixed all of its problems. It was a bit expanded as well.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose per 1c, which calls for factual accuracy. Certain statements are misleading, for example;
  • "The album had positive reviews, though it was not commercially successful.[6]" - According to whom? Whether an album is "commercially successful" is subjective, and mere opinion. In this case, it's the opinion of the person who wrote the biography you've cited. Furthermore, where are these positive reviews? Or is this another opinion of the biographer? Opinions are being flaunted as fact here, and deliberately misleading the reader.
  • "Destroy Erase Improve was released in July 1995, with positive response from critics for the "heady tempos and abstract approach".[1][12]" - What critics? The way the statement is worded suggests a whole swathe of critics positively received the album, when in actual fact, only Allmusic is being cited. Please name the writer and publication who believes that the album had "heady tempos and abstract approach", and not just attribute it to "critics". "Critics" can be 10, or a 100.
  • "After the new album and the live performances, Meshuggah was beginning to be recognized by mainstream music, guitar, drum and metal magazines.[1][6]" - According to who? This is yet another opinion being flaunted as fact. You need to learn to differentiate opinion from fact. Name the writers and publications who make the assertion.
  • "In 2003, rhythm guitarist Hagström said about the possible musical direction of the band's next album" - The word "next" is redundant phrasing.
  • "Meshuggah has often esoteric lyrics,[1] which deal with often conceptual themes[19] such as existentialism.[21]" - More opinion being flaunted as fact. It's all personal interpretation.
  • THe "Musical style" section flaunts opinion as fact extensively. At the end of the day, just because Critic A thinks the band is "innovative" etc. doesn't make it fact - the average person might think it's rather stale. Opinions need to be attributed to the mouths of those in question in the actual article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I must disagree. I will give you an example of what you are saying. You are the main editor of Jihad (song) (check). It is a FA and you seem to be happy with it. Have a look at Jihad (song)#Musical structure. The second sentence says "A skittering vamp leads into the track, during which Lombardo shimmers his hi-hat." That is all. But according to who? "skittering vamp"? That is an opinion of one music journalist. The next statements: "Smoothly mixing up tempos, the band build the song with a fast,[7] "wonky, catchy and angular"[8] guitar riff reminiscent of the breakdown in 1986's "Angel of Death".[9] This guitar riff decelerates before bursting forward again in two-bar stretches underpinned by Lombardo's pounding, fifth-gear drumming.[7]" This is a salvo of opininated glorifying statements with no trace of the author.
Where is your border between a fact and an opinion? You can pick every single sentence in every article and ask "according to who?" But that does not make the statement be an opinion. Let me give you an example. Hoysala architecture - lead section: "Hoysala influence was at its peak in the 13th century". Should there be "According to most of scholars, historics and architects, Hoysala influence was at its peak in the 13th century."? Is this what you want me to write? If you see Michelangelo article: "Michelangelo's output in every field during his long life was prodigious" Is this not an opinion? Somebody can think that Michelangelo was inapt. Do you think there should be According to....etc.? Everything is subjective. There is no general objectivity. Opinion is on Wikipedia if someone says: "Michelangelo is better than Leonardo da Vinci".
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and scholarship. Scholars (in art) say that Michelangelo was a prodigy. Thus every single encyclopedia on the world says that Michelangelo was a prodigy (or something with the same meaning) without saying "according to..etc". Although being and not being prodigy is totally subjective, questionable etc..
"Meshuggah have an innovative style." and such statements have several reliable sources, written by scholars (renowned music journalists in this case). Thus I can write this down to wikipedia as it is. I focused also to have more sources for the contentious statements. In this case, there is the footnote instead of your "according to...". Every statement is "according to its footnote - source". Every FA on the wikipedia has tons of such statements like "Salvador Dalí was a skilled draftsman." But they can be said as a fact, because they have reliable sources.
Many editors including several admins told me that this article is allright for FAC. I do not think that they all would miss such a fundamental error.
If you think that there are controversial statements sourced by the official biography, tell me properly and exactly which ones. But I used the source carefully according to WP:PRIMARY and I dont think that it is used incorrectly in the article.

--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Image comments: Almost all images are free use/verified Flikr photos, or self-uploads. Some things, however. Image:Meshuggah Kidman2 2008 Prague.jpg seems like an image thrown in for the sake of another image, and its caption is borderline un-encyclopedic (besides seemingly hyperbole; give me a source if that's what he usually looks like.) I suggest getting rid of the pixel sizes in the images and leaving them to their default "thumb" parameters so that user settings adjust the sizes. Image:Meshuggah - Catch Thirtythree - cover.jpg has proper fair use rationale and source, with critical commentary in the article, thus meeting WP:NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I fixed all of the issues.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mario Power Tennis

Nominator(s): Ashnard Talk Contribs


Basically, I feel that this meets the criteria as it's well written, comprehensive and neutral. I realise that it's a relatively short article, but relevant points are covered in sufficient detail. The article has undergone peer review, which has hopefully ironed out any remaining issues. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Anything about the audio/music? Who composed the game? The Prince (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The best I can manage is the stated composer in the infobox. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be any info available except reception to the music. Thanks for the suggestion. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The external link looks to be dead and should probably be removed. The Prince (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...Link checker tricked me. I've removed it now—I don't think it contributed anything new anyway. By the way, thanks for the clean-up, Prince. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Meh—humour doesn't come naturally to me unless I'm hating on somebody else's article in the process;-). Fixed image size. I'm actually really clueless about images, so I'm not sure about the source. Somebody else uploaded it—who I believe is still active—but I don't know where they got it from. What should I do? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, one box art image is pretty much as good as another, so all you really need to do is find a similar one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Good gosh, Fuchs; what a way to mess with my head :-) If everyone does that, it's going to become kind of hard for me to sort through 40 to 50 FACs per day :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I didn't bold it 'cause I figured that would mess you up even more :P By the way I've resolved the issues at Bone Wars with the images (yeah this has nothing to do with this FAC but I dont feel like posting at your talk page right now.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
User: Jappalang kindly fixed the remaining issue with the box art. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I reviewed this during its peer review and I feel that Ashnard resolved any issues I was concerned with. I did bring up a comprehensiveness concern and subsequently searched some databases—I did not find additional print sources that offered more information than what the article presents. --Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • Are we missing a word like "mode" or option" in these sentences: "Power Tennis supports four-player multiplayer" and "In general, the game's multiplayer was"
  • "Also accounting for the delay of release was a willingness not to update the graphics only without exploring advancements to concepts and gameplay..." Huh?
  • "When questioned about difficulties noting the game..." Huh?
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 05:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've addressed the points adequately. For the second and third, I'm assuming you have a problem with some awkward wording and/or lack of clarity. I'm not exactly sure, so I've changed the wording into something that should be clearer and more straightforward. Specifically for the third, if you have a problem with the circumstances of the questioning, then the context is explained at the beginning of that paragraph. If I've misinterpreted how you wanted the sentence to be fixed, then please let me know. Thanks for the comments. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Giggy

  • "Power Tennis was developed simultaneously with Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour, which shared similar technology and concepts with the tennis game during production" - could the second part be reworded, maybe to something like "and the pair shared..."?
  • Reworded to suggested version
  • "This mode can be completed either in "doubles" or "singles"" - wlinks to relevant tennis articles?
  • I've linked "doubles" to Types of tennis match, which lacks heirarchical headings. It also contains a bit of info on "singles", but I didn't want to link it twice.
  • "while this was the first appearance for Wiggler as a playable characters." - shouldn't that be singular? ("as a playable character")
  • Oops; didn't see that.
  • "with one being offensive and the other defensive" - this phrasing is slightly awkward... remove the "with" and play around with it a bit
  • Reading further on, I feel that this part is redundant considering it mentions scoring or defending a point later on depending on the shot chosen. There doesn't seem to be a way of rewording it without reiterating that, so I deleted this part.
  • "Eurogamer's Tom Bamwell welcomed Power Tennis's style, which emphasised gameplay over realism" - can you emphasise that this is his opinion and not necessarily reality? ("...which he said...")
  • Done
  • Japanese and Australian sales figures... no American data?
  • There's also the small matter of Europe;-). Looking for American data, I only seem to find NPD data posted on forum sites by forum members. There's also VGchartz, although I'm reluctant to use it.
  • Yeah. Europe. Scoff. ;-) Giggy (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's about it. Nicely done. Giggy (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Ashnard Talk Contribs 12:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Support. Giggy (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Guadalcanal Campaign

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk)


Respectfully submit this article about a major World War II Pacific War campaign for featured consideration. The article has passed a Good Article review [2] and a WP:MILHIST A-class review [3]. All 17 of the article's sub-articles have already been successfully nominated for FA. Numerous other editors have contributed to the two year effort to build this article to where it is now, including Raul654, Kablammo, eleland, Nick Dowling, Oberiko, Trekphiler, Buckboard, Wwoods, Binksternet, Jim62sch, Work permit, and Burningjoker (my apologies to other editors whose names I've neglected to mention). Cla68 (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Image:TokyoExpress.jpg does have a source: "Pacific Ground War," Shinjinbutsuoraisha, Tokyo, Japan, (2003)". The book includes no further publishing info than that, which, I understand is often the norm with Japanese publications.
  • Yes, Image:Japanese battleship Haruna.jpg does have a watermark, which appears to be on the original print kept by the US Navy's historical division and therefore unavoidable.
  • The web sites which aren't reliable sources have been removed [4] Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Would it be possible to get an official count on the naval warships involved on both sides. The "strength" section in the infobox gives the impression that it was an all-infantry battle, although a lot of the action (especially in the early portions) occurred between surface and carrier fleets.
  • The map in the "battle for Henderson Field" section is really really small, and it is extremely difficult to see the actual details of the map. Would it be possible to expand it a little?
  • Other than that, looks good. Cam (Chat) 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with giving the ship counts is that both sides, during the six months that the campaign lasted, deployed most of their entire Pacific naval forces at some point during the campaign. Complicating this, is that some of the naval forces provided only indirect support, such as escorting convoys to the general area but not to Guadalcanal itself, or else provided cover for operations around Guadalcanal from a distance. Submarines, in particular, from both sides operated around the Solomon Islands area but weren't necessarily assigned in direct support of the forces engaged on Guadalcanal. In addition, Australia and New Zealand warships served during this time in support of both the New Guinea and Guadalcanal Campaigns, which were ongoing concurrently. For this reason, a definitive counting of the number of ships, both warship and logistic, involved is extremely difficult and problematic. So, I'm open to ideas about how to capture this in the infobox. The thing about the infobox, though, is it's just supposed to give a quick summary of some important facts from the article. And this particular fact is hard to summarize.
  • The images are unsized per the WP:MOS. Any reader who wishes to view the map in larger size needs to click on the image to expand it. Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Alrighty then. No further issues. Cam (Chat) 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - another excellent article on the pacific campaigns of World War II. The few objections I had have both been addressed adequately, so this article is (imho) ready for FA. Cam (Chat) 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tree: A Life Story

Nominator(s): maclean


A small article on a small book. It did the DYK and GA processes in July and now I'm nominating this article because it meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines and its Feature Article criteria. maclean 08:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - the prose is poor and way below FA standard. Here are some of the many problems I found on my first reading:

  • Suzuki started to write a draft but a busy schedule interfered so he sought a collaborator to help write. - The last three words are redundant.
  • The tree written about in the book is not the one he encountered at his home, but rather a generic Douglas-fir. - encountered at his home?
  • Prior to these chapters there are sections titled Acknowledgments and Introduction, and afterwards sections titled Selected References and Index - I would prefer before but do you need this much boring detail?
  • The bark of a mature Douglas-fir withstands fire but the heat dries its cones enough that their scales spread and winged seeds are released. After it rains, one seed washes to area open to sunlight, with well-drained soils. How about the heat dries its cones and the scales spread... and why is soil plural?
  • and leave feces with nitrogen-fixing bacterium. - containing nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
  • Through osmosis, water and nutrients enter the root and are transported up to the seed. - Water and nutrients enter the root by osmosis and are transported to the seedling.
  • A symbiotic relationship develops between the roots and the fungus from the truffles: access to a large area of water and nutrients for the tree in exchange for energy, in the form of sugars for the fungus - Truffles are fungi, so what other fungus is symbiotic? The second half of the sentence makes no sense.
  • Hormone is linked twice
  • A branch falls off under the weight of too much snow accumulating on its canopy mat, combined with a number of other stresses like a very long and cold winter with a dry summer, the tree’s immune system is weakened and the resulting wound becomes infected with insects and fungus. - This is a snake and needs chopping up.
  • Needles turn orange as the tree abandons the branch and diverts nutrients elsewhere. I think the tree has no choice since the branch has already fallen off.
  • Parallels to the tree's age are made with historical events, like the tree taking root during the life of 13th century philosopher Roger Bacon Where's the parallel?
  • On best seller lists in the Canadian market, the hardcover peaked at number three in the MacLean's and the National Post's non-fiction lists. There are lots of passive sentences like this one.
  • The biography premise of a tree was well-received. Was the biography or the premise well-received?
  • did find - found. Graham Colm Talk 09:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for reviewing this. I've made the corrections and continued copyediting. [8] I hope it is getting better. maclean 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Dark-eyed Junco birds, and other seed-eating animals do you mean Dark-eyed Junco and other seed-eating animals or Dark-eyed Junco and other seed-eating birds and mammals - I'm confused.
  • premièring - seems odd usage applied to a book (in refs)
  • Suzuki references are odd - surely a synopsis by definition applies to the book, and a 70 page range is useless as a reference? I wouldn't ref this section (see To Kill a Mockingbird). If you feel that a ref is necessary, either just one for the book as a whole or reference every sentence of the synopsis - present version is worst choice. jimfbleak (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • After it rains, one seed washes to area open to sunlight, with well-drained soils. I know what you mean, but...
  • Where hormones accumulate, buds form which will either become a new shoot of needles or a cone. Buds form where hormones accumulate; these become either new needles or cones.
  • Just too many errors jimfbleak (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help identifying how the writing can be improved. I've done another pass at copyediting. I trust it is improving. --maclean 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Removed the cite interview. They should all be citation now. --maclean 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Old Trafford

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)

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

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

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

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)
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)
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)
    • 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)
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)

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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
        • 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)
  • Current ref 25 (Alfred McAlpine...) is still in all capitals.
    • Done. – PeeJay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
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."