Talk:Progressive Field/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Oldelpaso (talk · contribs) 16:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC) This article is in good shape, and no particular area of the criteria gives me concern, so I am happy to pass it straight away. There are a few minor things that I've listed in the comments below, but they generally go beyond the GA criteria. To reach featured article level, I'd suggest more detail on architecture and critical reception/reputation in order to round out the comprehensiveness a little.[reply]

’’Plans for a new stadium first began in 1984 when voters in Cuyahoga County defeated a property tax for building a 100% publicly funded domed stadium.’’ “voters defeated” - could do with some explanation. Was there a referendum? Also, domed stadium just redirects to stadium so not the most useful link.
”Indians legend Mel Harder” - not keen on “legend”, as it acts as a WP:PEACOCK term. Likewise for “iconic Jacobs Field sign” later in the article.
Most jargon is linked on first use where required, but the occasional one slips through, such as “bullpen”.
“Second retro-modern ballpark” what was the first?
In 1995, the Indians qualified for the World Series for the first time since 1954; it was the first time the World Series was played at Jacobs Field. repetition of World Series
Whereabouts in Cleveland is it located? Is it downtown, as the building height in the background of some of the images might suggest?
Knowing nothing about baseball, it is not clear to me how Progressive Field has “distinctive dimensions”. How are they different to a typical baseball park?
It may be that it is not possible to answer this in the article without veering off-topic, but what were the reasons behind attendances collapsing, going from hundreds of consecutive sellouts to record lows of less than a quarter of capacity?
The first structural change described in the body occurred “prior to the start of the 1996 season”, but the first change in the infobox capacity is 1997. Given the number of capacity changes, it might be worth considering putting them in a table, and only putting the current capacity in the infobox.
I noticed a couple of instances of “it was announced that” in the article, a phrase that is usually superfluous.
There could be a little more about the types of seating available. From the pictures it looks like not many seats are under cover, so perhaps some information about that? (If baseball grounds are almost always uncovered seating, ignore this comment)
The lead could perhaps be a little longer.
Refs 4, 34, 35 and 37 are missing information. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'll address the comments when I get some time.--Astros4477 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]