Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/PNC Park

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:22, 13 October 2008 [1].

PNC Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Blackngold29


I began working on this article in April 2008. It has since grown and received reviews from a number of users. I have attempted not to rush it into any stage of the process, but now feel it is ready for a FA review. I will do my best to address any comments. Thank you. Blackngold29 14:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • What makes http://www.hoksport.com/projects/pnc.html reliable?
    • This is the official website of the company that designed the stadium. Here's a potential replacement. [2] This is a great newspaper article from when the stadium opened, and is a high-quality source by any standard. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that, if possible, it would be better to replace it with that newspaper article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both of them (said article and official site) are currently citing the sentence. Is there a problem with leaving both there, as it is confirmed in multiple other sources and it is the company's official site? Blackngold29 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose it would suffice if you added the newspaper article in addition to the existing source. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is http://chronicleconsulting.com/proj/sea.html reliable?

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Website of the company that inspects PNC Park. Not sure how reliable that makes it, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it seems to be the official site of the company. It isn't really a controversial claim and I would like to keep the statement as it's a one of a kind bit of info. I'll remove it if needed though. Blackngold29 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll leave this one up to the other reviewers to decide (not that I don't believe you, I just want to be sure that it's reliable). Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comments - Finally, a topic that I'm truly an expert in, having attended 17 Major League Baseball stadiums, including this one. I'm quite pleased to see one of them come here, but think that it does need improvements.

  • The Pirates' attendance in their first two seasons in the stadium is given, but I'd like to see what the figures look like now. A brief check of the ESPN website shows that average attendance is now down to about 20,000 a game. This is probably due to the team's failure; it shouldn't be hard to source that.
    • Added to the "Seating and ticket prices" section. Blackngold29 05:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To our fine image experts: What is our policy on having panoramic pictures that take up the whole screen? Personally, I hope this can be kept because it's a beautiful photo.
    • Agreed, there are a few more that I could upload from FlickR, but I thought the current one was the best. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Didn't hear anything about this, so I'm striking it until given a good reason to do otherwise. I love the picture anyway. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead could use expansion to three paragraphs. First paragraph isn't that big either.
    • Expanded to three paragraphs, I generally dislike long intros, but it should be close if not adaquate now. Blackngold29 05:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fifth home to the Pittsburgh Pirates," Picky, but perhaps replace to with of.
  • "Built in the style of classic stadiums, such as Fenway Park," Classic is a problem, because reviewers here think of it as POV, even though virtually all baseball fans would call Fenway Park classic (even Yankees fans like me). I'd prefer how this is handled in the body, with the term coming inside quotation marks.
    • I put quotes around it and cited it again. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why no mention of the influence provided by Camden Yards and other new ballparks? To me, I see many of the new baseball stadiums as trying to imitate the success of these stadiums, and honestly saw more of them during my PNC visit than I did of Fenway and Wrigley Field (another ballpark I've seen in person).
    • I don't think I saw any sources that mentioned Camden. I'm sure there are many different parks that influended it, but I think Fenway and Wrigley were the most predominant. I'll look for a source, and add it if there's one out there. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link I provided at the top does discuss Camden a bit and says that it "started the retro trend in major league ballparks". I'm sure that the success of the new stadiums inspired the Pirates owner to build PNC, but it's not a deal-breaker if the sources aren't clear enough to avoid OR. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphens for second smallest and third cheapest.
  • Planning and funding: "Discussion about a ballpark took place, however, due to the possibility of the franchise's relocation to a new city;" Why is however used when there is really no contrast with the prior sentence.
    • I took the ; out, how's that? Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no change, but I'm satisfied that the other additions help create contrast. One thing: is "they" referring to the discussions or the stadium? Possible tense issue if it's the latter. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I re-worked the wording. Hopefully that makes it clearer. Blackngold29 14:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of money figures need non-breaking spaces.
    • Bah, I got most nbsp, but forgot the money. Got 'em. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Design and construction: Why is foot linked? I know how long a foot is, and our readers surely do as well.
    • It came up in the peer review, I figured it couldn't hurt. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will track this and come back with more comments once these are addressed. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still in Design and construction: Two straight sentences start with "PNC Park was constructed..."
  • "In addition, all 23 labor unions involved signed a pact that they would not strike during building process." Should be the building process.
    • Added, also got the nbsp for "23 labor..." Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening and reception: Don't think there should be a hyphen in "high-ticket prices".
  • Contractions like in "best he's seen so far in baseball" are bad unless they are part of a quote.
    • It was a quote from the article, must've forgot the quotation marks. Added. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Men's Fitness, as a printed publication, should be in italics. In fact, please check the references and adjust those as well.
  • Statues: Hyphens for "... foot" uses. And don't repeat Honus Wagner's first name.
  • "Two days later, the official opening of PNC Park," Try "Two days after the official opening of PNC Park,"
  • Alterations: "thu making PNC Park..." Typo.
  • Other events: "PNC Park has also hosted various concerts, including The Rolling Stones and Pearl Jam, in 2005." Has the stadium only held concerts in that year? If not, a little tweak is in order.
That's all from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more picky thing that I touched on earlier. All printed publishers of references should be given in italics. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and other newspaper articles should be changed. Not sure if this applies to books, though. I think they're fine as is. I'll support when this is done. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got them all. Book and magazine titles are automaticall italics due to their templates. Blackngold29 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments - overall, this is a good article, but there are some things to address before I can support.

  • In the history section, the article should say something about the old ballpark. What was wrong with it? Why was a new ballpark needed?
    • Well, I would think wear and tear of 30 years would be assumed, but I added location and traffic issues too. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discussion about a ballpark took place" - I think it needs to say "Discussions ..." (with plural).
  • "team studied the challenges of constructing a new ballpark" is followed by the sites recommended for the stadium. How is site selection a "challenge". What challenges did the team report about in the report?
  • "Kansas City-based HOK Sport designed the ballpark." - that's a very simple sentence, too simple. Something more could be said about their selection as architect, such as when they were selected.
    • This has been brought up before and I looked for further info, but couldn't find much on any bidding process. I added a quote from the cited article about HOK being the leading stadium architect; they were also awarded the New Pittsburgh Arena without much fanfare. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "PNC Park was constructed over a 24-month span–three months faster than any other modern major league ballpark" - I believe this is not true. It might have been built quicker than any stadium up until that time. However, ground was broken on Nationals Park on May 4, 2006 [3] and officially opened on March 30, 2008 when the Nationals played the Atlanta Braves [4] which makes the construction quicker than 24 months that it took to build PNC Park.
    • As of 2001 it was the quickest, clarified. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I have only reviewed the first two parts of the history section, and will look at the rest later. --Aude (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

  • In the Opening and reception section, the article cites Ahjua as saying PNC Park is one of the "top ten places to watch the game". I'm not sure exactly how many MLB baseball teams there are, but it's around 30. So, PNC Park is in the top third of all stadiums. It's a new stadium being compared with Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum and other older stadiums, so not surprising it's ranked highly. But, I don't know how remarkable or notable it is to say it's one of the "top ten places to watch the game."
    • He didn't say "top ten major league park", there are hundreds of minor league stadiums across the US and I'm sure in other countries. I think he was implying top ten stadiums in the country or world, not Major Leagues. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue with saying "In 2008, Men's Fitness named the park one of "10 big league parks worth seeing this summer."" - at the very least, this seems redundant with the Ahjua quote, and perhaps the article does not need both.
    • That was added to show that even years after it has been there it is still rated as one of the best in the game. It also re-enforces the notion that it is a widely held view that PNC Park is one of the best. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many of the workers who built the park said that it was the nicest that they have seen" - compared to what else they have seen? I presume that workers on the project are local Pittsburgh construction workers who work on various other types of projects in the Pittsburgh area, which are not as high profile or notable as a stadium project. Thus, I'm not sure the significance of including that statement.
    • The article its cited to talks of one worker who has been involved in construction since Mellon Arena in the early 1960s. 23 different unions were involved and I doubt all workers were from Pittsburgh. I could take it out if you really feel it shouldn't be there, but I get the vibe that most workers were not local. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Other events section, the article mentions the Pittsburgh Panthers. It's not obvious that this is a college team. Perhaps the two sentences can be reworded, to start off saying, "The first collegiate game at PNC Park was played on May 6, 2003, between the Pittsburgh Panthers and the Duquesne Dukes.." Then provide more of the details.
  • Images - I know there are reasons why you can't have a picture of a statue, but the "PNC Park at night" photo doesn't really belong in the "Statues" section. It could go in a different section. The PNC Park at night picture is forced at 200px, which overrides user preferences. Please don't force the pixel sizes. Otherwise, the photos work well with the article, and the sandwich looks good. :)
    • With the exception of the panaramic picture, they were thumbs when I added them, somebody must've changed them. Fixed and relocated. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Aude (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm satisfied with your explanation for including the various quotes in the "Opening and reception" section. I believe the article is factually accurate and comprehensive, with use of several books along with various news and other sources, and the sources are all reliable. --Aude (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments - There are some great images there, but I cant see Image:RobertoClementeStatueatPNCPark.jpg or Image:NLC-PIT-PNC.PNG meeting WP:NFCC#8 or the article meeting featured article criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I'm not to learned in the picture area. Are you saying that they should be re-sized or eliminated? I think the Roberto one is a good picture, but I could understand removing it. The logo on the other hand, being that it is the building's official logo, should probably stay. I mean all sports teams have logos in their articles—Calgary Flames (an FA) has two. Blackngold29 17:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that the logo is essential to understanding, if you look at WP:LOGO it discusses band logos, and I believe that stadia logos falls into the same category. A stadium can be uniquely identified visually with a picture of the stadium, most stadia don’t have logos, and the articles are fine without them. The m:mission is to create a free encyclopaedia, and this non-free material is not significant and it’s use is contrary to the mission of WP Fasach Nua (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the logo. In addition, I have replaced the Roberto Clemente Statue picture with a free image of the Roberto Clemente Bridge with the Park in the background. I moved their locations so the Bridge would be near the prose that discusses it. With that, I believe all pictures are from the Commons. Blackngold29 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets criteria 3 in full Fasach Nua (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I am by far a bigger hockey fan than baseball, its good to see a sporting venue article get this sort of treatment. Good job. -Djsasso (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All my comments have been addressed, and I'm satisfied that the questioned sources are reliable enough for what they're citing (they seem similar to using Aramark to reference concession info). Looks like it meets FA criteria to me, though I did leave a couple more notes for you. Consider them opportunities to apply some extra polish. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too many errors, including a missing verb in the lead; maybe Giants2008 will run through one more time. See my edit summaries and inline queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All inline queries have been taken care of. I'll run through again. I feel that intro's are the weakest part of my writing and it has been expanded since the FA review began, so that may explain some of the shortcomings. Blackngold29 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stunned that I missed that. Bad job by me. I have virtually no experience with thorough copy-editing, but I'll take a shot at it later today. Please monitor my changes carefully so I don't mess anything up. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my first copy-editing pass, covering the lead and most of History, is done. I'll do more tomorrow, assuming that the first batch of edits is up to par. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the changes look great. I've been working on it for so long, I like to see how other people would write things. Yeah, definately keep going. Blackngold29 23:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My humble attempt to provide a copy-edit has concluded. Not to brag, but I improved it quite a bit. I did run into a couple little issues in Other events, which I'll post here.
You have definatley improved the article. Thanks a lot for your work! Blackngold29 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the game, late Pirate Roberto Clemente received the Commissioner's Historic Acheivement Award;". He couldn't have received the award, because he had been dead for 24 years. Perhaps change it to say he was honored with the award.
  • "A goal of the drill was to test the response of 49 western Pennsylvania emergency response agencies." Don't like the double response here. The source said it tested communication, but I didn't want to take such direct wording from it. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I had difficulty with wording in that section too. It now read, "...test the response of 49 western Pennsylvania emergency agencies." Which I think is suffic in getting the point across. Blackngold29 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Giggy. Only some very minor niggles.

  • "which is considered to be the "leading stadium design firm in the [United States],"" - considered by whom?
    • The article doesn't really make it clear. From my understanding, they appear to appear to be unparalelled in their field. The only thing I could think to add would be "...acording to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette." Would that be alright? Blackngold29 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which relayed building plans 24 hours per day" - when you say relayed I expected a target (eg. "relayed plans from X to Y") or something like that - am I misreading?
    • It now reads "relayed building plans to builders 24 hours per day." Blackngold29 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fans seated in the section are allowed "unlimited hotdogs, hamburgers, nachos, salads, popcorn, peanuts, ice cream and soda" for an entire game" - what's the catch!? If it costs more to get a ticket in that section you should probably say so
    • There is no catch that I can see, I don't believe prices were raised anymore in that section than others. It does sound almost too good to be true, but when your trying to attract people to watch the Pirates... Blackngold29 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a caption be added for the infobox image?
    • Would "A view of the field from the press-box" or something similar be acceptable? Blackngold29 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/PNC_Park&oldid=1136096190"