Talk:Åråsen Stadion

Removed external link

[1] is beyond dead, it has no further use as it now is only a spam-search-engine or whatever you call it.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Åråsen Stadion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BigDom (talk · contribs) 15:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: →

   All issues dealt with

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: →

   Just the inconsistencies of units and capitalisation that need sorting out Sorted

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   References are all (bar one) in Norwegian but they seem reliable (several newspapers, official LSK club website)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: →

   Everything has been sorted out so passing the article as GA

Lead

• In the infobox, the tenants should just be Lillestrom SK, the international matches etc. are mentioned in the text later anyway.
• "LSK, which since 1920 played at Lillestrøm Stadion, started purchasing land for their own venue in 1947" → "LSK started purchasing land for their own stadium in 1947, having previously played at Lillestrøm Stadion."
• "as LSK was promoted to the top division and have remained since" → "as LSK was promoted to the 1. divisjon, the highest division of Norwegian football." I just think it's better to give the name of the league, rather than "top division" and having the part about remaining in the top division makes the sentence sound clunky and isn't really important in the lead of a stadium article.

History

• "my chair" → "by the chairman"
• "Construction was largely done with volunteer work, with the stadium costing 31,000 man-hours in volunteer work and NOK 150,000" → "Construction was mostly done by volunteers; the building of the stadium required 31,000 man-hours in volunteer work and cost NOK 150,000"
• "change rooms" → "changing rooms" throughout the article
• "The stand had place for 2,500 spectators, and the stadium had a total permitted attendance of 6,000 people." → "The stand could accommodate 2,500 spectators, and the stadium had a total permitted capacity of 6,000 people."
• "road Fetveien" → "the Fetveien road"
• "extended with 352" → "extended by 352"
• "in the weekends" → "at the weekends"
• In the caption of the photo of the East Stand, I think "opened" would be better than "taken into use"
• "The new pitch had the dimensions 105-by-65-meter (115 by 71 yd)." → "The new pitch measured 105 by 65 m (115 by 71 yd)."
• "Combined, this cost NOK 12 million." → "These renovations cost a total of NOK 12 million."
• "it consists of 6,500-square-meter (70,000 sq ft) of commercial property" → "it contains 6,500 sq m (70,000 sq ft) of commercial property" I'm not doing any more of these units, you get the point by now.
• "This included a 8,500-square-meter (91,000 sq ft) section to the north which consists of 96 apartments" - Mixing up past and present tenses in one clause (included/consists)
• "causing the upgrade to not include floodlights" → "which meant the upgrade could not incorporate floodlights".
• "using the flood lighting" → "using floodlighting"
• "The club retained full ownership of Åråsen Stadion, which owns the venue itself." - this doesn't make sense to me. The stadium owns itself? Or should it say Åråsen Stadion AS?

Facilities

• "The venue has an all-seater capacity for 12,250 spectators." → "Åråsen Stadion has a capacity of 12,500 spectators, all seated.
• "Of sponsor seasons" → "For sponsorship reasons"
• "The eastern stand has Kanarifansen, the supporter group, occupying the southern part, while the northern part has unnumbered seats" → "The southern part of the East Stand houses the Kanarifansen, the official LSK supporters' group, while the northern part has unreserved seating."
• Need a space between "Lillestrømbanken.[11]" and the next sentence
• What is Legia?
• "have their practices" → "hold their training sessions" and "near-by" → "nearby"

Events

• "Åråsen has been the regular field also for UEFA tournament matches, ..." → "Åråsen has also been the venue for most LSK matches in UEFA tournaments, including the Champions League and the UEFA Cup, ..." Remember that some people who read it won't know what the specific UEFA tournaments are.
• "The record attendance dates from 16 May 2002, when Lillestrøm hosted a match against their rivals Vålerenga, attracting 13,652 spectators." → "The record attendance of 13,652 spectators was set on 16 May 2002 in the match between Lillestrøm and their rivals Vålerenga."
• "The team's highest average league attendance is in 2007 season, which saw an average 9,018 spectators." → "The team's highest average league attendance was set in the 2007 season, when there was an average of 9,018 spectators per match."
• "with it being as low" → "and was as low"
• It says LSK has the most expensive tickets in the league - how much are they?
• "Årårsen" is a typo
• "playing 1–1" → "drawing 1–1"
• Fix the redlinks to Slovakia and Czech republic by changing "youth" to "under-19"
• "on 26 July saw Germany" → "on 26 July Germany"
• Why only attendance for one of the U-19 games?

References

• Ref 16 is in Norwegian but isn't marked as such

Other comments

• Units are inconsistent throughout, and rather then writing out "meters" every time, just use the abbreviation "m", similarly "sq m" etc.
• Capitalisation of the stand names is also inconsistent - sometimes the article uses "East Stand" etc, but other times "the eastern stand". Pick one style and go with it (I would probably recommend the capitalised versions)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article, your feedback is much appreciated. Unless otherwise noted, everything has been seen to. Regarding the lack of attendance for the one U-19 match, the newspaper records gave the attendance for the one match, but not the other. As for the abbreviation of units, as far as I can see, the entire article consistently uses long forms, which is what is preferred in prose by the Manual of Style" ("In prose it is usually better to spell out unit names"). Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't realised that you'd used templates for the units until just now. I suppose there's no room for complaint if that's the way they come out, but it looks strange to me (I think that's probably 'cause they were written by someone who uses American English). No worries about the attendance if it isn't given anywhere. Anyway the prose issues have been sorted now (I just made a couple more changes myself) so I think I'll pass this now. Good work. Cheers, BigDom 16:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)