Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Tennessee Park/archive1
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2015 [1].
First Tennessee Park[edit]
- Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a minor league baseball stadium in Nashville, Tennessee. I believe it meets the criteria to become a featured article. It has recently been peer reviewed and copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - I'll take a look and make comments as I go - I will also tweak the prose (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning!). cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The modern design of the park incorporates Nashville's musical and baseball heritage- wary of the word "modern" - let facts speak for themselves.- Removed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, Greer was repaired and upgraded to preserve its functionality and keep it close to Triple-A standards- I'd argue that "preserve its functionality" is vague and redundant, and should be removed as it adds no meaning.- Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
link "approbations"- Linked to Wiktionary entry. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
During construction, the need for new water and electrical supply lines was realized.--> "During construction, the need for new water and electrical supply lines arose." (probably even better ways of saying this)- Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
high demand for tickets.- "for tickets" is redundant and repetitive- Removed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The financing plan involved a combination of public and private funding.--> "The financing plan involved public and private funding."- Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Sounds ownership group spent $50 million on a new, mixed-use and retail development to anchor the facility- I am confused, what is "anchor" meaning here...?- As in the cornerstone or primary development of the facility. I changed this to "...development to serve as the cornerstone of the facility." NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The stadium is being integrated with modern Nashville and will eventually be surrounded by new apartments, parking ramps, and restaurants- "being integrated with modern Nashville" sounds advertorial and can be cut I think.- Removed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ballpark has a modern design that is inspired by Nashville's heritage- that word "modern" again...- Removed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
cast ultra-high performance concrete planks- err, this an official classification?- Yes, see Types of concrete#Ultra-high-performance concrete. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
link acrylic and berm- I linked the first instances of each. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
are the ground rules pretty standard or unusual in any way?- These are your standard ground rules. Should they be removed? NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure - am not familiar with baseball park articles.....maybe see what others think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick look at other baseball park articles shows a general absence of ground rules. For the three FA parks, two (one of which I also worked on) list ground rules. I'm going to go ahead and remove them as they don't apply specifically to any distinct features of this park. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure - am not familiar with baseball park articles.....maybe see what others think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These are your standard ground rules. Should they be removed? NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise quite an engaging read....@NatureBoyMD: over to you. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I don't see any prose-clangers outstanding. Will naturally depend on some other folks taking a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Sorry but after running a month this nom still hasn't attracted enough commentary for anything approaching consensus to proomote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.