Wikipedia:Peer review/Bootham Crescent/archive1

Bootham Crescent

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have expanded this article recently and hope to nominate it for WP:FAC soon. Looking for any constructive comments, especially regarding prose quality. I'm also concerned the Future section might be over-detailed. I wonder if starting a York Community Stadium article and reducing the content here might be a good approach? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from me:

Most of the Future section deals with the past
In any case, it's way too detailed on stuff that hasn't come to fruition
With a ground that old, it's recentism to devote so much space to the last 8/9 years, too (in essence, it's an offshoot of the History section)

More to come --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I've condensed the Future section, and have signposted the newly created York Community Stadium article. Do you think it looks more balanced now? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I've made some tiny tweaks, mostly apostrophes and hyphens, and a couple of times linked FA Cup runs to the FA Cup season article directly: "in the [[1954–55 FA Cup]]" rather than "FA Cup in the [[1954–55 in English football|1954–55 season]]". IMO, the prose does need tightening, could do with a decent copyedit from someone accustomed to FA standards, which I'm not, and who can write clearly and succinctly, which I can't. The following comments aren't in any rational order.

Wonder whether every mention of a season really needs to be blue? not many people are going to want to read 1986-87 in English football just because York installed hospitality boxes. And, for that matter, whether every mention of a time needs to be "in the 19xx-yy season" rather than "in 19xx-yy" or, if it isn't really football season-related, just in 19xx.
- I've removed the links for non-football related events, and reworded in some cases as suggested. Would state the year, but the sources I've used haven't been so specific. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inglis's opinion is that it was "a rushed and ill-advised decision" (at least in hindsight) to move from the Fulford site to a ground with no possibility of expansion, "hemmed in on four sides", and that even at the time, two former directors said as much. Is that worth a mention?
- Expanded to include the arguments of the former directors. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of Inglis, some of your text is too close to his. You may want to check it through and rewrite some bits. I really ought to go through a similar exercise with St Andrew's to reduce the close paraphrasing of Matthews' 1995 book. Mind you (a) some of his is pretty close to a piece from the Birmingham Mail (or Daily Post?) of the time, and (b) he got his own back when he lifted my "other uses" section wholesale and verbatim for his 2010 edition.
- Attempted to rewrite the text referenced to Inglis. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder if there's just too much detail: does the general reader need to know how much a retaining wall cost or that the vice-presidents' lounge was officially opened before a match against Wrexham? Another exercise I should apply to St Andrew's...
- I'm a little reluctant to take this out... think I'll see what people say when it goes to FAC. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In History: is "when houses on the Shipton Street End were bombed" right? what's the "auxiliary supporters' club"?
- Reworded; Persimmon haven't put houses on the ground just yet :) Mattythewhite (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I interpret "auxiliary supporters' club" as being Batters' awkward way of saying "unofficial supporters' club". Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Structure and facilities, should you include that the gentlemen's facilities for away supporters are still "open air and are of the 'stand up against a brick wall variety'"? Do we need the list of since-then groundsmen's names?
- Expanded on the all signing, all dancing bogs. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the list of groundsmen, I don't they're particularly notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Future (and possibly elsewhere), you need to make sure dates are near the item they apply to: e.g. The council chose the option of building a 6,000 all-seater stadium ... in July 2010 wants the date at the beginning, by the council choosing rather than the stadium-building.
- Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Other uses, what is Northern Command? The wording England under-18s links to the article England under-16s: one must be wrong. Has it really only held one music concert? and who was it?
- Wikilinked to Northern Command. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Link fixed. It was an under-18 match. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per York City South, the concert was a "one off rock n roll concert", but "Neighbours' complaints meant it was not repeated". setlist.fm list the acts who performed. However, I'm not sure either of these would pass as reliable sources, and I can't find this info anywhere else :( Mattythewhite (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've got BNA access, haven't you? This lists the bigwigs at the opening of the ground, local MP, FA treasurer, FL vice-pres, etc. Sometimes contemporary sources supply interesting content that books may have omitted, and it's a wise approach to show that you've consulted all available literature on the topic. Don't suppose the York Press has an archive accessible to the public?
- I only realised after accessing that link that my subscription has lapsed... renewal requested. Unfortunately, the articles on The Press site only go back to January 1998, and I don't think there's any way of accessing older articles. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Findmypast also allows access to the BNA, although I don't find the interface particularly friendly. Try this instead. Or indeed this, which is the one I was actually aiming for... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, I hadn't realised that. I've now added that info, and will search Findmypast for more. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any usable old images of the ground? it seems wrong to have the David Longhurst image next to the 1932 construction (could it be moved to somewhere near the relevant prose). Or images of the outside of the ground, if there's anything interesting that can be seen through all the hemming in? Or an OS map fragment showing the irregular shape and hemming in? hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For History I've added an OS map showing the ground's shape and the hemming in, a 1992 photo outside the entrance, and moved the David Longhurst Stand photo beside the relevant prose. I've moved the photos of each stand to Structure and facilities, and I've put my Paint abilities(!) to the test with a schematic plan of the ground, which also demonstrates the strange shape. I've removed the panoramic as there isn't really space for it now. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't feel pushed into moving everything around, I was suggesting possibilities, not requirements. Like if there are no old images, it does no harm to have newer ones in not entirely perfect places (and relieving the wall of text) rather than trying to cram them all in next to the "correct" bit of prose. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yup, I had a good think about what images to include where to put them, and I feel the balance is at least a bit better now than it was before. Might still change once the FAC gets under way, of course. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's in really good nick. I don't think we'll gain much by debating here, you're better off taking the plunge and heading to FAC. It's certainly worthy of inspection there already, so go for it! Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, I'll take it to FAC soon. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]