Talk:Target Field/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 11:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to do the review rather quick and dirty, as it does not meet the good article criteria. A lot of the groundwork is in place and the amount of work needed to bring the article up to standards may not be much, but the article has some shortcomings:

• Nowhere is it mentioned that the field is in the US (please understand that Wikipedia is a global project any many people do not know where neither Minneapolis nor Minnesota is).
• The lead does not summarize the article and half the lead is about where the Twins played before. Key information, such as for instance cost, capacity, record attendance and architect is missing. There is even information in the lead not mentioned in the body.
• Never create a section named "summary". The lead is supposed to summarize the article and the rest of the article is to provide details. A lot of the content in the summary section is missing in the lead.
• The first paragraph of the history section is misplaced.
• If you want to wind up a brief (one-paragraph) summary of the Twin's home grounds, the history section is the place to do it.
• Do not create very short sections, such as "LEED Certification" and "Construction".
• The "Metro and Commuter Rail Connections" should be moved out of the history section and made into a "Transportation" section.
• The features section needs to be rewritten to prose instead of a bullet list.
• Only proper nouns are capitalized—table headers etc. are not.
• Opening day "firsts" are very trivial and hardly worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.
• Similarly, a comparison with Metrodome is fine, but it needs to be in prose format. Words say a lot more than numbers.
• Be consistent in image sizes—don't force the size without very good reason.
• References need a publisher or author, and online refs need an access date.
• Keep external links to a minimum.

My main concern is the lack of references. Large parts of the article are entirely unreferenced. Everything in the article needs a reference to a reliable source to meet the good article criteria. I am going to fail the article, but hope to see it back at GAN soon when the issues have been resolved. If you have any further questions, feel free to drop me a note. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)