Talk:City of Manchester Stadium

As of 16 June 2010, this article is a very good article. (compare to current). This means the community feels this article is written very well. You may see the vote that promoted the article here.

PVGA comments

Here are a few comments for improving the article. I will do a more thorough when I have more time.

• In the lead, "bowl" should probably be linked.
  • Done.
• "redevelopment" should also be linked, as it's not simple.
  • Done.
• "Manchester City Council" is linked twice. Should be linked only once on its first usage.
  • Not done. The one usage is in the text. The other is in the infobox. I personally consider the infobox to be an exception to the "only link once" rule.
• In the refs, ref number 44 says "20 july 2004". Should be "20 July 2004".
  • Done.
• Websites in the "Other websites" section should use the {{cite web}} template.
  • Done.

That's all for now. Megan ( ^t/_c ) 15:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

All done, except for the city council linking. Any more comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! :) Either way (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments for the History section

More comments. I will work on the other sections later.

• Here are some words that should be linked or simplified: bid, host, competed, celebrities, long-term, temporary, permanent, jokingly, positive, feedback
• However, in October 1993 the games were given to Sydney, Australia. There should be a comma after "1993". Sydney, Australia should also be linked.
• On 30 October of that year it played host to a rugby league match between Great Britain and Australia in the Tri-Nations series. There should be a comma after "year".
• In June 2005 the stadium hosted England's opening game in the UEFA Women's Championship. Comma after "2005".
• As Manchester City Council own the stadium it is also called the "Council House" by fans of City's rivals Manchester United. Comma after "stadium" and one after "rivals". "Own" should be "owns".

Megan ( ^t/_c ) 15:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

All are done except for a wikilink to "temporary" because it is linked a paragraph or two prior in the history section. Thanks for the comments! Either way (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Eptalon's quick review

I don't have much time to spare, so the review is only quick.

• The article is made of many sentences, which are simply "subject verb object", that is the "shortest possible" form (except for imperatives) in English. With the time, reading such sentences is tiring (at least to me). Could we therefore link two such sentences into a longer one?
  • Can you point out some examples you think need to change? I did this to keep the language simple. See Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_pages#Simple_Sentence_Structure for why. We should be aiming for subject-verb-object.
• There are still some red-links left which need at least stub articles
  •  Doing... I hope to have them all filled by the end of this week. Done
• Personally, I'd go for "twelfth" instead of "12th", but anything abouve ten is a matter of discussion.
  •  Done I generally prefer twelfth, too.
• You need to be careful with formulations like "The games were given to Sydney" - this is not about "physically giving" something to someone - Short explanation, and perhaps avoid "give" in this context?
  •  Done fixed the wording.
• Don't start a sentence with But, add however somewhere near the end.
  •  Done reworded those sentences.
• The stadium's foundation stone (in history) - I am unsure whether you refer to Wembley or Manchester here, please clarify. Also it's probably the foundation stone of the stadium ('s is only for people/living things)
  •  Done clarified;  Not done to the second half. A non-living thing can still have possession.

Those are just remarks after a quick glance, feel free to ignore them. --Eptalon (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

PVGA comments

Sorry, haven't read the other comments, maybe I post things already mentioned.

• Redlinks need to be created.
  •  Doing... Hope to be done by week's end. Done
• was laid by Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in December 1999 - shouldn't it be the former prime minister?
  •  Not done I am 90% sure this is fine as is. He was Prime Minister when it occurred, so I think it should remain with that title. He was not former P.M. when he laid the stone.
• In the history section, there are different formats when talking about game results. n/m-dash
  •  Done
• On 30 January 2007 it was - Is there a comma missing after the year?
  •  Done
• In July 2006 funding - comma?
  •  Done
• Ref 6 needs to be formatted.
  •  Done

That's it! Good work overall! -Barras ^talk 18:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments! Please let me know if you have any others! Either way (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

References

My only concern about this article is...ref number 12, 20, and 42 seem to be dead. Can this be fixed? —Classical Esther^talk 11:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

All are updated. Either way (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A few more

• However, structural problems led to the sculpture being taken apart 'in 2009.[37] I don't think there should be an apostrophe before the word "in".

• Outside the football season the stadium hosts concerts. Comma after "season".

• Local band and vocal Manchester City supporters Oasis have played concerts at the stadium. There should be a comma before and after "Oasis".

• In 2008, end of season fixes, along with an early start to the football season, meant the pitch was not ready in time for the first home game. "End of season" should be hyphenated. Also, the last part of the sentence, "meant the pitch was not ready in time for the first home game" doesn't seem to make sense. How can the pitch not be ready?

That's it. Once these are fixed, I believe this article to be ready. Megan ( ^t/_c ) 14:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

All are done. The second part of the last bullet might make more sense to you now that I added the word "scheduled" between first and home. Basically, the pitch was so torn up they could not get it ready and in playing condition in time. Either way (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

VGA Demotion

I was thinking about demoting the article from VGA status because of the amount of red links. I think at this point it should just be GA status. Matthewishere0 (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Red links aren't enough to demote an article just like that. The article is as exhaustive as you can get and is worthy as a VGA. IWI (chat) 03:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Matthewishere0: The article is at good length, well source and most importantly it's not complex (in language). Its good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Check the sources too, a lot of them are dead and havent been updated since like 2015. Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Dead sources by themselves are not a reason to remove the corresponding cited statement (or even the citation), per guidance on EN. Unless facts have changed and caused the article to be hopelessly out of date, I think it would be hasty to consider demotion at this point of time. Chenzw  Talk  15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

What redlinks are you referring to? Other than the navigation box at the bottom, I don't see any redlinks. Only (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)