Talk:Malmö Arena/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Reckless182 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 19:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I will review this article. Arsenikk (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Architects, owner/operator and construction cost should be mentioned in the lead.
- Done.
- I find the planning/construction history a bit short. Some questions I have include: where there plans to locate it elsewhere? did also the Redhawks feel the need for a new areana? how much did the venue cost? who were the main contractors? where there cost overruns? How much did the name sponsorship cost? Was there public funding of the venue?
- I will look into this and see if I can expand.
- OK. I've tried to answer most of your questions. The only question I failed to answer is the location, I couldn't find any evidence that this is the case, for all I now the idea of a new arena originated with the plan of the construction of the the new district where it is located.
- Looks good. Arsenikk (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt the arena covers an area of 51,000 km2. That's more than a tenth of the land area of Sweden.
- Fixed.
- Generally, "AB" and similar is not used as part of company names, unless needed to disambiguate from something else with a similar name.
- Maybe not internationally but AB is very often used in company names when mentioned in the media or elsewhere in Sweden.
- Units need conversion to imperial, this is most easily done using {{convert}}.
- Will look into this.
- Actually I couldn't find any examples that needs fixing. Unless m2 needs to be converted into square yards or square feet?
- m2 should be converted to sq ft, as that is the "standard" for measuring floor space. It looks very odd abbreviating the metric unit but not the imperial units. Arsenikk (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll fix it. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- m2 should be converted to sq ft, as that is the "standard" for measuring floor space. It looks very odd abbreviating the metric unit but not the imperial units. Arsenikk (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are there 370 restrooms or 370 toilets?
- 370 toilets from what I gather. I'll see if I can rephrase that.
- Done.
- Ref 2 mentions three architects which are not mentioned in the article.
- The name of the architects companies is mentioned instead. Should I change this to the names of the individuals instead?'
- Both. Although large building have multiple architects, lead architects are normally credited in addition to their firms. Arsenikk (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, this is fixed in the lead, I've left the infobox as it is as that would cause layout problems to mention both. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- One more thing: all information in the lead needs to be repeated in the body, so that information needs to also be mentioned in either the history or the specifications section. Arsenikk (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, this is fixed in the lead, I've left the infobox as it is as that would cause layout problems to mention both. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Both. Although large building have multiple architects, lead architects are normally credited in addition to their firms. Arsenikk (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The name of the architects companies is mentioned instead. Should I change this to the names of the individuals instead?'
- I don't really see the point of including the domain address of each reference in addition to the publisher.
- I don't see how it could hurt? The name of the publisher and the domain address may differ considerably in some cases.
- I would have included 2011 World Men's Handball Championships in the tenants list.
- Done.
Otherwise an interesting and well-written article. Arsenikk (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your feedback! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nice work! Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nice work! Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question for Arsenikk (talk · contribs). When you get a moment, could you have a look at the GA review on Eurovision Song Contest 2012 please. It was nominated a month ago, and the review also started, but I fear it has been forgotten about as its now been 2 weeks since the reviewer has even left instructions on what to do next, despite the reminder issued. Thanks Wesley Mouse 09:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)