Talk:BOK Center/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Don't presume that people know where Oklahoma is; please add 'United States'. - done
To make it less confusing, state the total cost and then the public spending. As it stands now, readers need to do head arithmetic to find the total cost.
'MATRIX' should be lower case, as it is not an acronym. -done
The last sentence in the lead is too long, please split in two. - done
It is not necessary with references in the lead (as all information in the lead is repeated in the text) unless the statement is extremely controversial.
The text talks both about 'César Pelli' and 'Cesar Pelli'.
Not placing the history section first is very confusing for the reader.
'350-pound' needs to be converted.
HD -> high definition
20 to 22 inches should be converted to cm, not mm. Also, it is better to use the syntax {{convert|20|to|22|in|cm|abbr=on}} to simplify the text.
Ford Center is now called Oklahoma City Center.
'luxury suites' should be linked.
Part of the information about the scoreboard lacks metric conversion.
Don't need to link BBQ twice.
Again, 5,000 pounds lacks conversion.
Conversion needed in scoreboard caption.
Does SMG collect all revenue from events? Do the home teams pay rent to SMG or to the city or do they play free?
Comma after 'August 30, 2008' and similar dates needed (always a period or comma after the year in a Month DD, YYYY, format)
The event history section consists of a lot of very short paragraphs. Instead, try to compress the information into fewer but larger paragraphs, and remove the bullet points. Parts of this information is also unreferenced.
I would recommend that the sections 'event history', 'notable event facts' and 'concert sellouts' be merged into a single top-level section, and renamed 'events'.
Dates should be in the format 'September 21', not 'September 21st'. - done
The first part of the 'impact' section looks closely connected to operations. I would find it more reader-friendly to have that information immediately after the ownership information, perhaps in a section called 'ownership and operation' or similar.
Part of the 'transportation' section is unreferenced. It also lacks any mention of public transport (if the venue is not served by public transit, this is definitively worth mention, as it would be near-unique on a world scale).
'See also' (which is incorrectly capitalized) should only contain links. Also, it is much better to include the link in the prose. If the link is not self-evident and includable, it should normally be left out. - done
'ECW' is a disambiguation link. - done
Refs 22, 32 and 37 are dead. Consider using WP:WEBCITE to avid linkrot in the future.
Refs 28 through 33 are incorrectly formatted.

Overall I'm very impressed with the article, and most of the above are minor issues. I am placing the nomination on hold, but once the above has been seen to, the article should pass. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, on 27 April 2011, I made the following edits to the BOK Center page:

Addition of "United States": Done
"Matrix" made lowercase: Done
Split last sentence of lead into two: Done
Corrected date format: Done
Created link to ECW (WWE): Done
Removed "See also" section because the Tulsa Olympics page does not exist: Done

If an edit has already been done, please check it off (if you know what I mean)Jim856796 (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been on review for over a week, and only some of the issues have been seen to. You asked for at least until Saturday to do the work, and I will therefore not fail the article at the moment. However, there are still, for instance, dead links, incorrectly formatted references, lack of conversions, and lack of information about public transport, without any explanation being given for why such shortcomings would be accepted. It is not the job of the reviewer to do any of this; it is the nominator who must do the work to reach the criteria, although I am more than happy to point out any issues or make suggestions for how to solve them. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenikk, a good article candidate need to be checked to see if it is reasonably well-written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and contain images to illustrate the topic. Also, please add the word "Done" if any edits you suggested have been made in this page. Jim856796 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review has been on hold for a total of 25 days. It appears that no comments have been made here for about a week. Although WP:There is no deadline, I'd like to see this wrapped up before much longer, if that's feasible. If you need help, please feel free to leave a note at my user talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the recommendations above are good advice in general, but not actually on the WP:Good article criteria. For example, you will not find dead links mentioned, much less prohibited, in the actual criteria (in fact, they are never prohibited, because WP:DEADREF basically requires that you keep most dead links for two years). Similarly, citations do not have to be perfectly formatted, and unit conversions are not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While deadlinks are not strictly in the criteria, they still need to be fixed just using common sense. After all, what good does a dead link do? Either way, this review needs to be passed or failed within the next couple days, since it seems clear that there won't be much more progress. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A URL that is apparently dead at one point in time may not actually be dead in the long-term. Even if the URL is permanently dead, knowing what it was is necessary for finding archived copies and is sometimes helpful for finding the new location (if it's gone dead due to a typical re-organization of the website or being moved into an /archives/ directory). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are mixing two concepts: The one is that we keep dead links even though they are dead; that basically means that we don't go on a url or ref removing frenzy just because the links are dead. That does not mean that it is okay to have dead links in a GA (or FA) article. If links go dead, it is better to look for new references (online or offline) which state the same information. References are there so that the information can be retrieved and checked; this is not possible with dead links. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing the article for lack of references. Several parts of the article are still unreferenced. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]