Talk:St Andrew's (stadium)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSt Andrew's (stadium) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 4, 2009Good article nomineeListed

(No subject)[edit]

Anyone know why this stadium is called St Andrews? Is there a Scottish influence? --Ukdan999 16:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the Parish of St. Andrew, (and also on St. Andrews Street)

I doubt there is much of a Scottish influence since there are an awful lot of churches in the area and I assume that St Andrew was just the next out of the hat.

I have changed the address to match that contained in the Royal Mail's Postcode_Address_File

-- 20 December 2006

Haunted St. Andrews

I remember reading something about how St. Andrews was haunted - any info? Should it not be added to the article??

Winterbottom 21:21, Jan 7th, 2007 (UTC)

No under-soil heating?[edit]

I assume after today's postponement that the ground does not have under-soil heating? If so I would find this surprising. --Jameboy (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You assume correctly. Struway2 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to lead section[edit]

The lead section is supposed to stand as an intro to the article, and as a summary of each section. I think the wording before the recent changes sums up the main points of the Other uses and Future sections well enough without getting too wordy.

The Other uses section mentions the ground being chosen twice as the venue for the final of the FA Vase, a major non-league competition: why should this not be mentioned in the lead? The second time St Andrew's was chosen to host it, David Gold said "I am delighted that St. Andrew’s will be hosting the FA Vase final this year. It is a real honour to be staging this terrific occasion, we hosted the event two years ago and it was a great day out for everyone concerned." [1]

As to the proposal to build a new ground, the article says club and council are still looking for funding. But until there are concrete plans, and there are none in the public domain at the moment, the proposal does remain speculative. If and when anything definite develops, then obviously someone will change the article accordingly. If the word "speculative" is the problem, it could perhaps be rephrased as "remains at the planning stage" or suchlike. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:St Andrew's (stadium)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review forthcoming. Nosleep break my slumber 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I had an internet outage just as I was planning to review this, and right now I'm much too tired to do this kind of work. Review will begin inside of 24 hours. Nosleep break my slumber 07:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to stop setting deadlines for myself....

Quick-fail assessment
  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. - Excellent sourcing.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. -
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. - Only recent edits appear to be largely minor tidying.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. - Not really applicable. Some further updates will probably be needed if and when the stadium hosts notable events, but otherwise no problem.

Proceeding with further review - right now! Nosleep break my slumber 20:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality: This takes the longest to check, so I'll come back to it.
    • they began a six-year redevelopment programme during which the ground was converted to all-seater to comply with the Taylor Report into safety at sports grounds Is all-seater a noun or an adjective? If it's an adjective, the sentence is correct, but it seems to me like it must be a noun.
      • Adjective, as in all-seater stadium to which it links.
        • Right, but the usage seems to have nominalized the adjective - that is, made it into a noun. Don't change it just to appease me or anything, this is just my impression and it's not exactly a make-or-break issue. Must try in vain to get a little rest right now, will be back this evening. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 12:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have reworded to "the ground was converted to an all-seater stadium to comply with the Taylor Report...". Reads a little less colloquially. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the board of directors estimated that staying at Muntz Street was costing the club £2,000 a year Any chance of converting that to current figures (to be added parenthetically, of course)? Two thousand pounds a year doesn't exactly seem like a staggering amount of money unless put into perspective.
    • Same for further money figures about the stadium's construction. I think it would really help.
    • Do be advised that subordinate clauses such as In the 1950s and By the early 1960s should be followed by commas. I'm almost positive this isn't a British/American English thing :@) especially as the sentence In the 1970s, the Asda chain proposed to share the cost of a new stand as part of a supermarket development on land behind the Kop made vacant by slum clearance; in the face of opposition from commercial rivals, the proposal fell through. does use it.
    • Again with the money - the rubbish tip beneath the Kop which had earned the club £800 in 1906 cost £250,000 to decontaminate isn't an entirely fair thing to say as the article currently stands. While this particular sentence probably should go unchanged, as its wording is decidedly compelling, the eight hundred pounds the team got in 1906 don't measure up to the quarter million like eight hundred pounds from 1994 would. They'd measure up as quite a bit more.
    • The ground has also been used for other sports. Small Heath Harriers athletic club, whose headquarters had been at the Muntz Street ground, trained at St Andrew's until the 1920s. Which sport is this? Track and field athletics? A wikilink to that article would be very helpful if so. If not, some other specification would help. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Track and field indeed, and done.
    B. MOS compliance:
    • A bit puzzled by the title. A cursory search shows "St. Andrew's," "St. Andrews," and "St Andrews" all seem to be in use. Google even asks me if I meant "St Andrews." Perhaps the title reflects standard usage with which I'm unfamiliar, but isn't "St" an abbreviation for "Saint," and don't abbreviations usually have periods after them? Still, if this punctuation is the correct name of the stadium, then of course it's the correct name of the article. I'm just a little confused. One source suggests "St Andrew's Ground" is the name of the stadium. Is there a source to this punctuation being the correct name of the stadium? Nosleep break my slumber 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Publications with a house style will use St. or St as that style requires, regardless of any "correct" usage, and the apostrophe is included more frequently by British sources and those with better proofreading (I do generalise a bit here). It may also be influenced by St Andrews, the place in Scotland with the golf course, which has no apostrophe. For information, a full stop (period) after the abbreviated Saint is much less common in British than American English, as WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations (the "Periods (full stops) and spaces" subsection) will confirm.
        • Okay. A bit of the confusion undoubtedly comes from being on the other side of the pond from this stadium :-P Nosleep break my slumber 06:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The place where a sports club played always used to be called a ground rather than a stadium. The formal name of this one was St Andrew's Ground until it became St Andrew's Stadium in about 2000, as evidenced by mailings from the club but with no official announcement of the change. Its common name has always been St Andrew's, with or without the dot, and the article was moved from St Andrews (stadium) to the apostrophised name a year or so ago with edit summary "per official site" [2]. BCFC appear to be gradually adopting the dotted version in the last few years, but while their website's How to find us page gives the address as "St Andrew's Stadium, St Andrew's Road" without the dots, I don't think a move away from the current version could be justified.
    • Everything else looks really good. Nosleep break my slumber 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, one more thing - why does footnote B precede footnote A? Seems illogical, though I don't know if it's technically against the MOS. I'd change it myself, but I'm unfamiliar with the template being used and don't want to screw it up. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 06:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because footnote A preceded footnote B until B was used in the lead as well as in the body of the article. Seeing as there are only the two, and it is noticeably odd, I've changed them round, though I'm pretty sure the MoS has nothing to say on the subject.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources: Very structurally sound.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Will assume good faith with the print sources, but a couple of things here. The word "encyclopedia" among the references kind of makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Encyclopedias should not be used as primary sources; while I get that the book is probably just using some cutesy title to include the word "encyclopedia," I'd like some assurance of that. More importantly, though, reference #65, "Under-21 International: Gifted young Spanish side hand out lesson" comes back as a 404 error. It needs to be replaced. Nosleep break my slumber 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Encyclopedia of Birmingham City Football Club 1875–2000 is so titled to reflect its comprehensive coverage and alphabetical layout rather than because it's an encyclopedia as such. Its author, who also wrote Birmingham City: A Complete Record, is West Bromwich Albion F.C.'s official statistician and an expert on West Midlands football history.
    • Ref #65 works for me, but it took a long time to load. If you're still getting a 404, I'll change it.
    C. No original research: Tough to imagine any article this well sourced having any OR in it. If any is apparent, it'll reveal itself in checking the prose quality. Nosleep break my slumber 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: Absolutely. Nosleep break my slumber 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Focused: I'm not terribly sold on the merits of the "Transport" section. Nosleep break my slumber 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias: Like the OR, fine-tooth-combing the prose will double check this, but it seems ok. Nosleep break my slumber 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc: Stable. Nosleep break my slumber 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Images are all free.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Some of the captions aren't terribly descriptive. Railway Stand, 2008 and St Andrew's, 1913 don't give a great deal of context. WP:CAPTION: Different people read articles different ways. Some people start at the top and read each word until the end. Others read the first paragraph and scan through for other interesting information, looking especially at pictures and captions. For those readers, even if the information is adjacent in the text, they will not find it unless it is in the caption—but do not tell the whole story in the caption—use the caption to make the reader curious about the subject. These don't really do that. Nosleep break my slumber 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Much improved, well done. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 08:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have had a go at these.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Looking pretty good, only a few small problems.
    • Thanks for reviewing it, I've replied to all your points thus far. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I will try to come back to this tomorrow, but I've not been too good at keeping self-imposed deadlines :-P I thought I was starting a new job next week, but I actually wound up starting it this week, so the workload I took on for myself became suddenly a lot more.... Nosleep break my slumber 06:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with OR or NPOV. Will probably pass this once the few nitpicks on prose have been addressed. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've addressed everything, and thanks for your bits of copyediting. Hope the new job is going well. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About as well as it can. I ran into an ex-girlfriend today that I thought had left town - awkward! Anyway, I'll go ahead and pass the article now. Good work. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also wanted to make a point of mentioning that the article is really quite interesting and I feel like I learned a lot from reading it. A very accessible article for someone, like me, who knows almost nothing about soccer. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have anything on...[edit]

the time the roof came off against Wolves? 92.236.151.82 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on St Andrew's (stadium). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on St Andrew's (stadium). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victim of wall collapse[edit]

The name of the boy killed was Ian Hambridge. Should this be included? On the one hand, there’s a right to privacy, on the other it seems a disservice to not even name him. OGBC1992 (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a commemorative plaque attached to an external wall of the ground (or was last time I looked), which I assumed was mentioned in this article and isn't. I don't think privacy would be an issue, the family campaigned for him not to be forgotten amid all the attention quite rightly paid to the Bradford fire victims, but I don't think it would be undue memorialising for his name to appear in a mention of the plaque, it'd be odd if it didn't. Give it a few days to see if anyone else has an opinion, I'm happy to add something. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Andrew%27s_(stadium)&oldid=1204984787"