Talk:Goodison Park/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am placing this nomination on hold. There are multiple issues that need to be addressed. However, the article deserves seven days to see if it can be brought up to par based ndon its thoroughness and potential. Even with the issues mentioned, the contributors should be commended for some outstanding information. I may do another read through since the later parts did not receive as much attention below.

• Lead section tag
  • I am not quick failing this article based on the tag since it should be easy enough to remove. Consider adding a paragraph discussing the different stands and their development. A mention of transport would assist in being a proper summary as well. (WP:LEAD)
• History
  • The second instance of "Mr" should be removed. (WP:SURNAME)  Done
  • Remove the dead link for citation 6. ISBN and other info is good enough. Page # would help.  Done
  • Another source should be found for 7. Done
  • File:Founding-father-john-houlding.jpg needs a Fair Use Rationale for this article. Done
  • The paragraph beginning with "Liberal Party politician..." needs an inline citation. Done
  • The following paragraph needs one as well. This is compounded with the quote. Done
  • "The Liverpool press were largely partisan, The" Period or uncap. Done
  • "29,471 square yards " needs a conversion. Try Template:Convert. Done
  • File:George-mahon.jpg needs a Fair Use Rationale for this article.  Done
  • "A third, covered " coma not required. Done
  • Consider revising this line "The club impressed with the workmanship of the builders agreed two further contracts; exterior hoardings were constructed at a cost of £150 and 12 turnstiles were installed at a cost of £7 each." Done
  • "The stadium was the England's first purpose-built football ground" extra the. Done
  • Consider revising this paragraph/line: "When the stadium was constructed, it was part of Lancashire but three years later, the political boundaries were revised to include Walton and the club was encompassed within Liverpool." Done
  • The paragraph starting with "The first match at Goodison Park was on..." requires citations. Done
  • "Outright purchase" subsection header may not be needed due to its brevity. Done
  • "RMS Mauretania" Italicize "Mauretania".(WP:ITALICS) Done
  • "...when the Gwladys Street Stand was completed at a cost of £50,000.[19][9]" Swap the citations to [9][19]. Done
  • File:Gwladys-street-bombing.jpg lacks permission information. Done
  • Several citation needed flags before the Taylor report subsection.
• Current structure
  • The subsections on the individual stands lack citations.
  • Bold type is not needed. (MOS:BOLD) Done
  • File:Dixie Dean Monument.jpg a picture of this sculpture may be nonfree content. I am not the best with that sort of thing so consider looking into it.

The photographer has allowed its use on wikipedia. TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Future section
  • Decap future Done
  • Debold the stadium name Done
• Transport
  • Address the needed citation Done
• Further information
  • This should be merged into the history section. It comes across as a trivia section but the information has historical importance. (WP:TRIVIA)  Done
  • Make sure citations are provided for the uncited paragraphs.  Done
  • Italicize The Independent Done
• Records
  • Citations
• Usage
  • "Other uses" is more common for such a section Done
  • First paragraph needs a source Done
  • "The last Everton player to play in an international at Goodison Park was ..." Needs a source. Would also be better in the history section. Done
• Attendances
  • A summary style paragraph should be added along with the existing Main article template Done
• Tables
  • Sources are needed for all of the games mentioned in the tables. Done
• References
  • Dates need to be standardized (ISO or spelled out) Done
  • All caps should be reduced to title case. (MOS:ALLCAPS) Done
  • Titles are needed instead of bare urls Done
  • Access dates are needed when citing websites Done
• General
  • A quick copy edit with a focus on comas might improve some lines.
  • It appears to be underlinked. Consider adding more. I will not fail it based on this.
  • Double check MOS:DASH. The year range in the infobox needs an en dash and there are several uses of - instead of em dashes. Let me know if you need a list. Done

There is maybe a little much mentioned so please feel free to ask if you need any clarification. I'm also fine with grabbing a few things if there is not enough time.Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work the last few days guys. I honestly didn't know if it would be possible. Most of the stuff up above has been grabbed and some minor concerns should not prevent GA. Per TheBigJagielka request, here is what needs to be done to get it promoted:

• You went a little far with the lead (good work in principle since expansion was requested!) Can you get it into 4 paragraphs? All of the info might be fine but it needs to be consolidated. WP:LEAD
• Nice work on adding the refs to the games. There are still a handful in the "Other neutral matches at Goodison Park" table. I also do not know if Footymad will be considered reliable enough to get over GA (I love the site so think it is fine). Have you tried Google News Archive searches?
• Images permissions. There are still some questionable images: File:Goodison-park-1913-royal-visit.jpg and File:Gwladys-street-bombing.jpg need permissions. They might be OK if the copyright has expired but it still needs the info. File:Northern-ireland-england-goodison-park.jpg appears to be a picture of copyrighted material. This is a big deal unfortunately. Make an inquiry at WP:MCQ regarding those images. Someone knowledgeable will be able to tell you the best way to get this straightened out.

This is only three things: Lead needs a couple paragraph breaks removed, the table needs sources, and the images need to get the appropriate permissions. We can keep the review open a couple extra days with how close it is.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the File:Northern-ireland-england-goodison-park.jpg image, as it was a football programme I looked at other football programmes that have been uploaded and found a license that fits, I also added a fair us rational. Tsange ^►talk 14:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I have fixed the other two images now (File:Goodison-park-1913-royal-visit.jpg and File:Gwladys-street-bombing.jpg). Fingers crossed Cptnono will find it acceptable. All neutral matches now have a source, this has took me ages. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned with WP:NFCC part 8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I have seen articles get a hard time based on overuse of non free content and this article is full of it. I do like the images and would like to see them stay but editors have varying opinions on how liberal we can be with FURs. I would assume that the copyright has expired on most of them which would eliminate the concern. I have been doing some poking around and am getting confused on the laws over there (50 years or 70 years and is it after publication or after the photographer's death?). So I will keep on looking. Hopefully someone will respond to your request at the Image Help page. We can always go to the regular help desk, make an inquiry a the GAN drive talk page, or ask for a second opinion at the GAN page. I won't fail this without a definitive answer so don't worry about that.Cptnono (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Worst case scenario, you pass it and an editor disputes the pass? Are we then forced to take images down? I've asked and people seem to think the current licenses are valid. TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable passing it if it is potential violation of copyright law. We are also doing the GAN drive to clear up the backlog which means there will likely be an audit. You could take them all down now and I would pass it but I would like to find alternatives so the images can be kept. It appears that Template:PD-US-1923-abroad will work for the 1913 one. It also might be applicable to 1907 program. The bombing one and the later program are a challenge. The 1940 one might work if we have the names of the photographer (is it listed where you found it?) since we could use another templates base on their death. File:George-mahon.jpg also does not have a FUR still. If we have the year of publication we might be able to see if it is now in the public domain. Basically, many reviewers would have failed this on its use of copyrighted material. Others might not have cared. I am kind of in the middle on it.Cptnono (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if this is the wrong place to put this, but the George Mahon picture is, I believe, now part of the Everton Collection. BigJagielka and I have talked about another image held by the Collection and I'm pretty sure they would be willing to allow both to be used for non-commercial reasons.--Steveflan (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No reason to apologize. There is an OTRS process where they can email Wikipedia but anything on here without a FUR has to have licensing for both commercial and derivative works. I know it is complicated and a pain. The best route forward is trimming down on the nonfree images by seeing which ones are in the public domain based on age. I could always ask for a second opinion at the GAN page if you guys want. I don't want to hold this up based on my perception of the rules alone.Cptnono (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed football programmes and added the PD-US-1923-abroad tag to the Royal Visit image from 1913. Is the article now ready to be approved? TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is more than thorough enough for GA. I question the images but that is something you should continue to look into. MoS, writing, and all of that other fun stuff is sufficient. I understand how much work you put into it so excellent work getting all of the stuff done over this last week.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cptnono, much appreciated! :)