Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turf Moor/archive1 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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 Karanacs 14:39, 16 March 2010 [1].

Turf Moor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): -- BigDom 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria. This is a comprehensive history of the second oldest football stadium still in use in England, and the first British stadium to be visited by a member of the Royal Family. The article also has information about the facilities and details what the future holds in store for this famous old ground. It recently passed a GA review with only a couple of very minor problems, which were quickly sorted out. All the images have alt text, the external links have been checked and there are no dab links present. This is my first FA nomination and I'm looking forward to your comments. -- BigDom 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Good work! But, there are issues pertaining to criteria 1c (well-researched) and 3 (images). The article, with the exception of two links to soccerbase.com, is entirely sourced to primary or self-published sources. You'll need to do more research and balance those out with secondary sources: local newspapers, secondary coverage on reliable web sites, and so on. Additionally, all of these images uploaded by BfcDan are suspect and/or problematic, as follows:
  • File:Turf Moor 1905.JPG needs attention—source information is not sufficient, and may have the wrong template. Should be on Commons with the correct PD template.
  • Nothing wrong with the licensing here as far as I can tell. The image was published in England in 1905, making it in the PD in the US. It may well not be PD in the UK as the author may have died less than 70 years ago, but it is PD in America for sure.
  • File:Turf Moor 1930s.jpg - He created the work himself? I seriously doubt it.
  • File:The Longside 25.jpg and File:Bee Hole End 1990.JPG are historic images; how do we know the uploader created the images? They're at least 10 years old, right?
  • The rest of his photos are suspect—judging by his talk page, it's clear he had no understanding of our image use policy. He may have uploaded images he found on the internet and then learned how to change around the license to avoid deletion. If we can find and verify sources for his historical images, and properly tag them, we can use them. Not the rest, though.
Recommend withdrawal to work on research and images. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say that the sources were really an issue. I can assure you that I did a lot of research but there isn't much information from outside of Burnley Football Club pertaining to the history of the stadium but I think the plans for the future etc. can be sourced to local press releases. I hadn't really considered the status of the images (all I did was add descriptions) but now I can see what you mean. I will work on some different images but am not withdrawing the nomination at this moment in time. -- BigDom 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books shows several other sources, such as this which gives at least some information about the stadium. Ucucha 20:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The benefit of secondary sources is that they provide independent verification of claims that primary sources cannot always be relied upon to make. Primary sources are often constructed with the assistance of marketing departments and the organization has a conflict of interest in general. For example, you've written: "This investment has been linked with the emergence of new director Brendan Flood". Linked by whom? No source is there—the next footnote refers to a primary source that does not support the statement made. Things like this pass at GA but are not FA standard. It is also worth mentioning that press releases are not secondary sources. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added references to some books (although as far as I can tell only the book I've used has a comprehensive history of the ground), and found local news stories (not press releases, but actual newspaper articles). Just a couple of things that I am still looking for, but I think there's been a great improvement in the sourcing. -- BigDom 21:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Turf Moor 1930s picture was actually created in 1929 and is included in the book I have used for the history, which confirms that it is now Public Domain due to the author being unknown. I have updated the source information and tags accordingly. Have replaced all the dubious images (I think) with a selection of pictures that I had taken on an old camera, which I have uploaded to Commons with proper licensing etc. -- BigDom 21:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up I revisited to check the sourcing. The first sentence I read has problems: "For the first time in a number years, the stand was made available to Burnley supporters for the club's first Premier League season in 2009–10." Aside from the grammatical error (I have not looked at the quality of prose yet), the source given does not support the statement. Maintain oppose—this doesn't appear to be ready. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree about the reference not supporting the sentence. The source says "Burnley will put an extra 1,500 season tickets on general sale after giving the go-ahead to plans to open up the David Fishwick Stand to home supporters." and that the stand "has long been the away stand". That's pretty much what I've written in the article, but I have tweaked the sentence slightly. -- BigDom 17:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is the "For the first time in a number years" clause. I don't see that supported in the source. There is a vague notion that Burnley supports could once sit there, but that's it. I'm not doubting the statement, and I'm sure it's something you know to be true, but we have to make sure it's stated in the source. The problem is that I keep finding issues that indicate the article may not have been thoroughly checked against the sources and against the FA criteria. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I share the concern Andy has raised above. On checking this "on 27 July 2007, Burnley revealed plans for a £20 million redevelopment of Turf Moor and the club's training facility at Gawthorpe Hall ..." I discovered that the source made no mention of redeveloping the club's training facility at Gawthorpe Hall. What it actually said was that the club planned to create a new "Burnley FC academy at the club's Gawthorpe training ground to nurture young players". Not quite the same thing. There are also a few other niggles, such as the misleadingly precise present-day monetary conversions such as "a total cost of £5,300,000 (Today: £7,416,366)". When is "Today" anyway, and why is it capitalised? Finally, we have yet more of the mini-essays masquerading as alt text, such as "A room with wooden walls that have a number of photographs on them. A number of people are in the room, looking at the photographs. Two dinner tables have been set with white table cloths. Around the tables are brown wooden chairs." The photograph that's describing (File:Turf Moor chairman's lounge.jpg) is exceedingly blurred in any event, and not suitable for an FA candidate. And from what I can make out only one person appears to be looking at anything on the wall anyway, something that looks like it might be a foorball shirt. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have removed the blurred picture. I have changed the Gawthorpe part along with the caption of the photograph so that it matches the sources more closely (as a Burnley supporter, I know the rebuilding of the training facilities to be true, but I can't find any sources so I realise that it can't be included for verifiability reasons). As for the "Today" issue, I added those in response to a comment at the GA review. The figures given are produced using the {{Inflation}} template, so they are updated every day, but do you have a suggestion for how the layout of these figures could be improved? Cheers for commenting, -- BigDom 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I realise that as a supporter you may know stuff, but, well, y'know ... Anyway, as to the "today" issue, I alway use something like "as of {{CURRENTYEAR}}", which keeps the year up-to-date so to speak. I've added rounding to a couple of the conversions as examples. Further on the topic of images, the alt text for Gawthorpe House describes it as "Elizabethan", but the site the photo came from calls it "Jacobean", which seems perhaps more likely given the place's history. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.