Talk:Hampden Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Images, dablinks and check out fine
• The lead is somewhat on the short side. Anyhow, the last "paragraph" should be merged into one of the others.
• Instead of saying "It celebrated its centenary on 31 October 2003", say "It opened on 31 October 1903".
• The history needs to be summarized in the lead.
  • I think all three of the above points have been covered by expanding on the stadium history in the lead section. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Convert all measurements to metric; using {{convert}} makes this easy.
• There is quite of bit of repeated linking. I've removed some, but be wary of this in future articles.
• Don't link decades (fixed).
• The first time SFA is mentioned it needs to be written out in full and linked.
• Why is the match against Hungary mentioned? Beyond being a good team, it does not seems that it was a "key", "first" or "largest" or anything the like.
  • I think it was an important match of that period. Hungary were the outstanding team of that era; they had famously defeated England 6–3 at Wembley a year earlier. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• "remarkable" is a word to avoid in an encyclopedia.
• Find a more objective term than "played several great games"
• Similarly "a tremendous winning goal"
  • Okay, I have tried to remove some of those superlatives. I have replaced the Zidane adjective with a more technical description of his goal and a reference. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• The see also under 'structure and facilities' is rather confusing. It would be better to just incorporate a brief summary and and the link in the prose.
  • Done. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• The rugby section needs to be copy-edited somewhat. The term "It was over 90 years until" should be rephrased to mention the next year (and perhaps date), and it is also confusing if the Romania game was part of the World Cup or not.
  • Done. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Songs are, but tours are not, in italics.
• Most of the information in the 'records' section is mentioned elsewhere in the article, so I would suggest just dropping the section, and incorporating the few stray sentences (QP attendance etc) elsewhere.
  • I was following the example of (FA) Old Trafford, which has a separate records section that goes into a bit more detail about the fluctuations of Manchester United's attendances through time. I don't think this applies to Hampden because Queen's Park do not play on a high level and the number of big events at Hampden are therefore smaller (just some of the Scotland games and cup finals), but I think it is still necessary as a summary. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• The transport section should be compressed to a single paragraph
  • Done. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• The one see also link is in a navbox, so the section and link should be dropped.
  • Done. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Overall an interesting and well-written article. Most of the above issues are minor, and after they are seen to, the article should pass. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the article looks good, but I'm concerned about the second paragraph in the lead. My concern is the section "Hampden was greatly expanded during the early 20th century. It became the largest stadium in the world and several attendance records were set. Its capacity has been greatly reduced since then," which although isn't incorrect in any way, is very vague. Instead of saying "early 20th century" (which could be anything form 1905 to 1940), use specific years, even if it is a range of years. Similarly, state the maximum record at the stadium. Instead of saying "greatly reduced", state the current capacity. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A am passing the article. Although I must just have missed it on my watchlist, it would have been faster if you had also posted on the review page that it was done. The article is well written and interesting; hope there are more of this quality coming soon :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)