Talk:York Park/GA3

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Philcha in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with   Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it   Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Coverage

edit

Structure

edit
  •  Y Looks OK at the top level. I may have comments on the order of passages within sections. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Need to sort out where details of the development plan go, see below. -Philcha (talk)
  • I've just realised the main text does not say up-front what the ground's main functions are and where it is. I suggesting making "Events" the first main section and incorporating the "transport" section and other location info there. I'd start with the functions, as that's what will get attention, and then deal wiht location etc. in the latter part fo the section. Sorry for not spotting this earlier, perhaps it's only become apparent as a result of other restructuring and / or I got too involved in checking that everything was supported by good sources. --Philcha (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
From the looks of it I actually don't think putting the Transport section into the events one makes much sense, an would probably disrupt the flow of the article. Just my opinion though. Wizardman 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Prose

edit

When you've dealt with the referencing issues, please recheck the prose carefully. It might be best to get a friend to check for you, as I know I find it easier to spot others' mistakes than my own :-/ --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Verifiability

edit
  • The first section, "History", has several statements that are not supported. Please:
    There is a real problem with referencing in the History section because a detailed article on Aurora Stadium had to be removed as an unreliable source, therefore that's the reason why some sentences aren't referenced properly and I'm struggling to find any others, so it's looking like some sentences have to be removed. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 04:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    We both know where the problems are, so I would not rush to remove text yet. At your Talk page I suggested you ask librarians, and mentioned a web page that listed other organisations that might be able to help in identifying sources. You've been quick to respond so far, so I'm confident you'll keep at it and I'm in no hurry to set deadlines at present. --Philcha (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Found as much as I could and removed outsourced material. It's hard because the York Park area wasn't much before the late 90's. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

History

edit

Review paused

edit

I think there's little point in my walking through further sections until the issues raised above are resolved. Please leave messages here to discuss things or when you think you've fixed the issues. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Development plan 1998 to 2009

edit

Structures and facilities

edit

Hall of Fame

edit


Think all issues have been resolved. Shame you won't be able to continue as you've done a fantastic job so far. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

edit

The link checker report shows 2 issues:

  Done I removed the Crusty source since that note was referenced twice already. Second link fixed. Wizardman 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
edit

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) shortcut for en.wikipedia.org with redirected and disambig page options selected --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Done Can't check this at present, someone's messed up the tool. Will try tomorrow. --Philcha (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
They are still all good, that link isn't working for me either when I tried before reading this. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
The Examiner is still a DAB link. --Philcha (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
  Done Aaroncrick (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py is having a bad day now. It still says 1 dAB link, but I scanned the markup and found none. --Philcha (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Use of images

edit

Other uses

edit

Almost missed this in all the restructuring.

Record crowds

edit

A few copyedits

edit

Lead

edit

  Done Aaroncrick (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Done Aaroncrick (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Pass

edit

I'm very pleased to say that this article meets or exceeds the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images.

Aaroncrick, many thanks fr the determiation you showed in tracking down those elusive refs. Wizardman, thanks for polishing up the rough edges.

If you've got 2 or more articles to GA status, please consider reviewing some other GA candidate articles. You'll find a list of candidate articles at WP:GAN, grouped by subject area. In addition to the instructions there and the Good Article criteria, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. If at any stage in a review you are uncertain about how to handle something, ask at WT:GAN, where experienced reviewers will be happy to help. --Philcha (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.