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 Karanacs 03:42, 14 July 2011 [1].

---

Anfield[edit]

Anfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Anfield/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Anfield/archive2

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article is close to featured standard. The article has received a copyedit from the GOCE and has had a peer review which proved very productive. I now believe the article is in very good condition and ready to be considered for featured status. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 49: why no date?
• Why italicize CNN and not BBC Sport?
• FN 40: check publisher punctuation
• Location for Kelly?
• Are all of the publisher locations in References in the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the first four issues and yes all of the publisher locations are in the UK. NapHit (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Image Review
  • I don't like the situation with File:View of inside Anfield Stadium from Anfield Road Stand.jpg (it was uploaded by the photographer in low res under a free license, but links to a flickr page with a high res version under a CC BY-NC-SA-2.0 license, which isn't free). Don't know what can be done about it. It's strictly legal but in very poor form.

I think File:The view from the Kop.jpg might be able to replace it, the quality is better and there is no issue over the license. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It works, but if you do that, you should pull File:The Kop, Anfield.jpg from the bottom of the article, as the two are almost identical. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done, added one which highlights what the caption is stating. NapHit (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • The quality on File:FlagpoleGreatEasternLFC.jpg is just awful. If someone near the stadium could snap a replacement picture, that'd be nice.

Ye its not the best, can't find a replacement on flickr either, unfortunately I don't live near the stadium so can't get a replacement picture hopefully someone will be kind enough to do so. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll poke around on the IRC, I know a couple of people there live in England, but I don't know where specifically. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • The quality on File:Paisley Gateway, Anfield - geograph.org.uk - 81527.jpg is okay, but could be much better. Not really urgent.

Found a better one which is now in the article NapHit (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works. The angle isn't the best but no image is perfect. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • A couple images could use having their date fields filled. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

added the dates to the images that didn't have any. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good show. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support (through gritted Evertonian teeth). A few very minor points on prose:

• Lead
  • As Shankly was the manager before Paisley perhaps mention the former's gates first.
• History
  • Image caption: "The This is Anfield sign…" gives the false impression at first glance of being a typo: perhaps inverted commas or possibly italics?
  • "The new team was called … and their first match at Anfield" – singular or plural? Consistency needed.
  • "They won 7–1" – clearer to the casual reader if you wrote "Liverpool won 7–1"
  • "Liverpool's first Lancashire League match at Anfield was played on 9 September 1893, against Lincoln City" – to the uninformed reader (e.g. me) it is not clear what Lincoln City would be doing playing in the Lancashire League. Could we have a footnote?

You were right to query this, it was in fact Liverpool's first game in the Football League. Footnote follows in the next sentence with the score of the match. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • "was hauled up the Everton Valley" – I wasn't brung up to say "the Everton Valley" – is the definite article needed?
  • "It still stands there today" – does the "today" add anything here?
• Structures and facilities
  • "with space for one personal assistant" – one per visually impaired patron or one for all of them?
  • "The Paisley Gateway is a tribute of Bob Paisley" – "to" rather than "of"? Ditto for Shankly, later in the same para.
• Future
  • "the Kop is unrivaled" – this is not what the quoted source says.

It does, the quote is at the start of the fourth paragraph. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, you know; look again: it says "unrivalled" (English spelling, not American). My earlier comment was too cryptic, I admit. Tim riley (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, corrected it NapHit (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Records
  • Somewhat one-sided. Perhaps a mention of the longest losing streak etc to balance the laudatory statistics already presented?

This is a fine article, and remarkably fairly balanced. Well done, blast it! Tim riley (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All my minor points above now addressed, and duly struck through. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, especially seeing as your a blue :p I've dealt with all your comments. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. This looks like a nice piece of work (also said through gritted teeth, as I'm from Manchester). There are a couple of things I didn't follow though:

• The Structures and facilities section says that there are 59 spaces available in the stadium for wheelchair users, 33 of which are available for general sale, 8 allocated to away supporters, and 2 reserved for emergencies. But that only makes 43, not 59.

Resolved this, I mis-read the source the 59 space is for season tickets holders, not a total as it suggested. NapHit (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The History section starts off by telling us that Orrell was the original owner of the stadium, who sold it to Houlding in 1885. But a few sentences later we're told that "A dispute emerged between Houlding and the Everton F.C. committee [when?] that escalated from negotiations regarding the full purchase of the land at Anfield from minor land owner Orrell." I don't understand that at all. And why did Orrell build the stadium in 1884? What was it used for before Everton moved in? The text says that Orrell let the land to Everton not the stadium ... in short, when was the stadium built, by whom, and why?

It is a confusing episode, firstly Houlding let the land of Orrell who still owned. I don't think Orrell built the stadium from my books say he simply let the land to Everton who built the stands themselves, as to what was there before the stadium I think it was simply a field that Orrell owned, I hope I've cleared that up. Not really sure how I can make that clearer in the prose.

• One last thing, the Other uses section is really choppily written and looks like it was at one time a list that's been converted rather unskillfully into prose. It really needs to flow a little better than it does. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go at improving this, I think its in better shape now. NapHit (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

• The caption for the first image (going down the article from the top) should not have the T in "the" capitalised, if the F in "from" is not, I do not think.
• In the intro, is "the changes, a result of the Taylor Report, greatly reduced capacity." correct? Would it rather be "the changes, a result of the Taylor Report, include greatly reduced capacity." or something to that effect?
• Is the first comma in "Fenway Sports Group's acquisition of Liverpool in 2010, has made the construction of a new stadium doubtful..." (from the intro) necessary?
• In the History section, it is stated that "Everton quickly improved as a team, and became Anfield's first league champions...". This was slightly confusing to me as no games other than their win of 5-0 were mentioned. I was under the impression that it already was a good team.

Their first match won't have been in the football league, it will have been in a league below that so that highlights the improvement. NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The most recent change to Anfield came in 1998 when the new two-tier Anfield Road end was opened." is stated in the History section. You may want to reword this ("The most recent structural change"?), as introducing a new style of turnstile might be considered to be a more recent change to Anfield. So might adding support poles and stanchions.
• The Structures and Facilities section refers to the "THIS IS ANFIELD" sign's text as all capital. However, the image caption higher up does not. You might consider changing this for consistency's sake.
• Just to confirm, in Structures and Facilities, are there 19 spaces for the visually impaired (38 total to include the personal assistants), or 38 spaces for the visually impaired (76 total to include the personal assistants)? It is a tad ambiguous but not necessarily warranting change.

38 for visually impaired with space for one personal assistant so it probably is 76 total, but as the source doesn't say 76 I'm reluctant to put that in the article. NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, are the headsets to provide full commentary just a luxury in case the visually impaired are also impaired in hearing? Is there a location for those with hearing impairments and/or would they be allowed to use the spots allocated to those who are visually impaired?

What is says in the article is what the source says, so unfortunately I can't elaborate any further NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the second image from the bottom's caption, is the text grammatically correct as a sentence?

No it wasn't you're right it sounded like the owner was going to construct the stadium himself! changed it NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"On 30 July 2004 Liverpool were granted planning permission to build a new stadium 300 yards (270 m) away from Anfield at Stanley Park.[31]" -- Is Liverpool referring to the team, and would the plural verb be appropriate here? The same question about the plural verb applies to, under Other Uses, "England have played Wales at the stadium on three occasions..." and other times it recurs several more times throughout the section. Further information: A ctrl+F search showed that the instances of the word "have" in the article are just after the pronoun "they", "users", "England", and "Wales". Ctrl+F also revealed that the only two instances of "____ were" in which the subject is not immediately apparent to me as being plural were "Everton, who previously played at Priory Road, were in need..." (under History) and "On 30 July 2004 Liverpool were granted planning permission to..." (under Future). I had not realised that this had already been addressed with "'The new team was called … and their first match at Anfield' – singular or plural? Consistency needed."

The references and footnotes are okay from what I can tell and sorry for the long post. Micromann (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All typographical and grammatical issues I noticed through 2 readings were corrected. There are no actionable objections which have not been resolved, and there appears to be a good balance between length and detail in this article. Micromann (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Comments from Jappalang

History

• "Everton's landlord changed when Houlding purchased the land from Orrell in 1885, charging direct rent."

  Pardon my density, but this is a bit confusing to me. Initially Houlding rented from Orrell, then he bought the land and charged himself direct rent?

  Ye there was a mistake, according to my books Houlding never bought the ground outright from Orrel before Liverpool F.C. came into existence so I've removed the sentence as its false. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Removing this sentence, however, eliminates the context for "that escalated from negotiations regarding the full purchase of the land at Anfield from minor land owner Orrell into a disagreement", and if Houlding never bought the ground, how did this came about? Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Houlding bought the ground after Everton left. Everton wanted to buy the ground before they left, but Houlding owned land adjacent to Anfield and wanted the club to buy that as well as Anfield, so they decided to move elsewhere. I'm not sure how the removal of that sentence removes the context, as it still says that Everton rented the ground off Orrell which provides the context for wanting to buy the ground. I can add the bit at the start of my reply if you want I think that will clear up the issue a bit. NapHit (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I see, it was the phrasing of the later sentence that catches me a bit off guard; I made some changes to clarify things (in my opinion), please check them over. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Houlding was left with an empty stadium, and decided to form a new club to occupy it."

  Does this mean Houlding's presidency of Everton F.C. was deposed?

  Again, I'm not sure Houlding was ever President of Everton F.C., there is no mention of him being President in my books so I've changed it to member (albeit an influential one) which the books say he was NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "... former manager Bill Shankly; Shankly's widow Nessie ..."

  I think it could be changed to "his widow" to cut a bit of repetition.

• "After the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 where 96 Liverpool fans died, ..."

  Would it be better to state instead "After the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 where overcrowding led to the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans, ..." to give the following clause some context on the change to all-seaters?

• "... depicts Shankly wearing a fan's scarf around his neck, ..."

  "... depicts Shankly with a fan's scarf around his neck, ..."

Structures and facilities

• "... to bring those who touch it good luck."

  Including the opposition (heh)?

Other uses

• "England has played Wales at the stadium on three occasions, in 1905, 1922 and 1931; England won all three matches."

  This sentence seems rather disconnected from the previous (first international game was England–Ireland) and trivial in overall context (why is it important to mention England played Wales three times here and list all years).

  England normally play the majority of their home matches at Wembley, with other grounds in the country rarely seeing the national team play at their ground, so in that regard its important. Perhaps listing all the years is a bit much, but I feel its important, as it shows when England were playing in different grounds. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It might be of significance but not in such detail; one might summarise it as "Anfield was also the home venue for several of England's international football matches in the early 1900s and for the Welsh team in the later part of that century." Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  added this sentence now and removed the superfluous detail. NapHit (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wales have staged three matches at Anfield—against Scotland in 1977, Italy in 1998, and Denmark in 1999."

  Same issue as above—why is Wales especially mentioned (is there some sort of Welsh connection behind the club's history)?

  Per the first point, national teams in Britain at least normally play at a fixed venue, so the fact that they are playing elsewhere and outside their country as well, does have some significance. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  See above.

Records

• "Liverpool did not lose a home league match at Anfield during the ..."; "Liverpool did not lose a match at Anfield from ..."

  This seems repetitive; suggestion for the second sentence: "Liverpool's longest winning streak at home extended from ...", which would match well with the subsequent sentence about losing streak.

• "This occurred three times in the 1893–1900, 1906–07 and 1908–09 seasons."

  This seems to suggest to me that the 3-game losing streak occured three times in each of those seasons. Is that the case or would "This occurred three times in the club's history to date (1893–1900, 1906–07 and 1908–09 seasons)." be a better sentence?

Images

• File:Anfield attendance from 1946 to 2007.png: Per WP:V, the image page should list its sources for the attendance figures.

  http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/england.htm was given as the source; what makes this website a reliable source? Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've found [2] which is a reliable site and if you click on the appropriate season link and choose the statistics tab then the average attendance for that season can be seen. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This site's "About" does describe a certain pedigree and faithfulness in their research (poring through documented materials). It looks fine with me. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Anfield outline.svg: Also in line with WP:V and WP:IUP, the source of data for the layout should be given.

I am keen to support this article once the more critical issues are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've addressed all your comments, thank you for the review. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity (not an opposable action): is it really possible for players to "reach up and place one or both hands on" File:This is Anfield.jpg? It seems they would have to jump (on the stairs), which would make it a wee bit of a dangerous stunt to pull... Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it is sure I was able to do it when I went on the stadium tour recently, so I'm sure the players can manage. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my concerns have been resolved and I believe this brief but comprehensive and nicely written article about a stadium (whose club I do not support—I support a certain Red but not this Reds) qualifies for Featured status. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Hope none of these are redundant to anything in Jappalang's review...

• History: "Orrell let the pitch to the club...". Here, "let" should be "lent".
• Don't need to link Shankly twice in this section. Also don't think the one in the next section is necessary.
• Structures and facilities: "The Kop is the most-renowned stand at Anfield amongst home and away supporters". "amongst" → "among"?
• Comma would be useful in "Originally a single-tier stand a further revamp", after "stand".
• Photo caption: "The Kop, the atmosphere generated by the crowd in the stand, has led owner John W. Henry to reconsider the construction of a new stadium." Something feels wrong with "The Kop, the atmosphere generated by the crowd in the stand." Maybe "The Kop; the atmosphere generated by the crowd in the stand has led...". That just tweaks the punctuation, but should be enough to fix it adequately.
• Other uses: NRL should be spelled out.
• Records: More overlinking for the 1893–94 season. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Giants, I've addressed all your comments. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Looks to be in good shape, and passes the Inglis test. Just a couple of queries:
  • Using your sources can you confirm whether either of the developments from the early 1900s was designed by the noted football architect Archibald Leitch, as some fansites imply? If so, he ought to be mentioned by name.
  • If there's a suitable source for it, it'd be worth mentioning that Liverpool always play towards the Kop in the second half if they win the toss.
  • Might be difficult to achieve while maintaining a neutral tone, but the bit about the Kop could be tweaked to stress the reputation it had as one of the most fearsome terraces to play in front of. Didn't Shankly once say something about the Kop "sucking the ball into the net", or is that apocryphal? Oldelpaso (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Oldelpaso, I've added info about Leitch and the Kop sucking the ball into the goal, but I couldn't add anything about Liverpool playing towards the Kop in the second half, as I couldn't find a reliable source. Thanks for the comments. NapHit (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I peer reviewed this and have reread it and find it meets the FA criteria. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.