Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Goodison Park/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 02:37, 16 April 2010 [1].

---

Goodison Park

Goodison Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Goodison Park/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA requirements and I am willing to improve the article further to meet those requirements if needed TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. Dead external link to http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/08-09/comment/fan/article.asp?submissionID=10231, dab links to Marquee, Spion Kop, and Territorial Army. Ucucha 18:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

All above issues resolved. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ucucha 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions I've been reading the article and have a few questions or things that need to be clarified. I'm only part way through so maybe I'll have some more later...

• In the Birth of Goodison Park section, the first paragraph, I looked at ref 8 and could not figure out what it was referencing in that paragraph
• Did Houlding propose buying both his land and Orrel's for 9237 or just Orrel's for 9237 and his for an unknown amount?
• What does the d mean in 4 1/2d?
• This doesn't make sense to me: Upon its completion the stadium was the first purpose-built football stadium in England, and was only preceded in the United Kingdom by the Scottish club Rangers' Ibrox Stadium, inaugurated in 1887. Goodison was first but Ibrox was first?
• Was the first match on 2 Sept an exhibition match? Maybe a cup? — Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a look at this and page on the official site has changed! I'll try and find an alternative source.

Combined fee of £9,237

Symbol for a penny

Yeah, Goodison was England's first stadium, Ibrox was the UK's first

Exhibition game TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You addressed all these. — Strafpeloton2 (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Question Is ToffeWeb a reliable source? It is "run by an international group of fans for the benefit of Blues across the world". I have no doubt that it is a high quality unofficial site, but does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Can we properly rely on that information published by ToffeeWeb is accurate? I'm also not sure about a page like this: [2] (footnote 26) --Mkativerata (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Toffeeweb can be considered a reliable source, it is in my opinion the most informative Everton website out there. What facts are you questioning/disputing?

The NSNO page is linked because of a photograph of a scoreboard showing the players' numbers. TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets assume the source is reliable - what part of it verifies the statement that "A scoreboard was first introduced on 20 November 1971"? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry to have to do this for a FA nomination in respect of my favourite football club, but I think this article falls short of FA standards particularly in respect of verifiability. The following are my central concerns:
  • Unreliability of sources. Much of the article is sourced to ToffeeWeb. I accept that ToffeeWeb is one of the best unofficial fansites on the web. But it is still essentially a fansite, not a reputable source of information that can be relied on by an encyclopaedia. A site such as Toffeeweb will inherently promote a particular view, generally favourable to the club but perhaps unfavourable of particular club policies (eg the move to Kirkby). It can't be relied upon to present comprehensive and neutral coverage of the club. But Toffeeweb is far from the biggest issue:
    • Using a self-published source of a baseball club (fn 125).
    • The sourcing problem discussed in my comment above: the source is not reliable and the material in the article isn't even supported by it. While the inaccuracy element of it has now been fixed, it was a glaring inaccuracy that makes me wonder what else is out there, and is still sourced unreliably.
    • Substantial reliance on publications of Everton FC (ie self-published sources) to support the article's material (footnote 23).
  • Entire paragraphs going unsourced, eg the one that commences "Goodison Park featured in the filming of", "Following this, plans were made to move to Kirkby" and "In more recent years, a large 'jumbrotron' screen"
  • The article does cover the full range of available literature: I'm seeing a number of publications that cover Goodison Park in detail but that are not used in the article: [3]. FA standards require a comprehensive review of all literature on the subject; only then can we be reasonably certain that the article itself is comprehensive. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

undue weight seems given to quirky matches, can these be taken out of tables and put in narrative form, the results aren't really that important Fasach Nua (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Most of the photos lack proper Alt text. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:ALT is not a requirement for FAs; please see the FA talk archives. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sourcing issues should be resolved before coming to FAC-- perhaps via a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

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