This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

College football Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. National Football League Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Green Bay Packers High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Bay Packers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Green Bay Packers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Green Bay PackersWikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay PackersTemplate:WikiProject Green Bay PackersGreen Bay Packers High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Wisconsin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Passed.
Well done Gonzo fan2007. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marquette Stadium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 20:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 00:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Copyvio?

Earwig shows a 14.5% which is low but I think it should be fine. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 00:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• File:Marquette Stadium 1925.jpg source link is dead
  • Google News Archive destroyed all their archives. It is a proper reference without the url though. Would you recommend I just remove the url? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 03:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

• link Ralph Metcalfe and Jesse Owens
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The vacant field continued to be utilized by both the college and the high school for track [and field], soccer, and intramurals.
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• [...], which is located just a few blocks from the site
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Checked sources: all are reliable; all are styled well; and all verify text.

• why do we need the Redskins and the Eagles summary sources for the verification of the Packers attendance thing?
  • They each verify the attendance for each game, thus showing that the Rams' game was the highest. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! Probably the quickest I have ever had a review taken. Thanks CosXZ! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No problem. :) Cos ^{(X + Z)} 03:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • passing. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 03:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that soccer games were still played at Marquette Stadium while it was actively being demolished?

• Source: "which was played in partially-razed Marquette Stadium"

• Reviewed: Nigel Williams

Created by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 71 past nominations.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Will review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good. Nice work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INTRO indicates that the lead should be "accessible to as broad an audience as possible". WP:AUDIENCE expands that "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." Given this context, this edit should be reverted; we cannot assume that readers are American, particularly given that this article is planned to appear on the Main Page, and we shouldn't force everyone else to follow links to understand where we are. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria you have been editing long enough top know that during a discussion about a content dispute, the original version is restored. This is the WP:BRD cycle and your editing is getting pointy. Your quoting of MOS does not state anywhere that the country of a place needs to be stated in the lead sentence. Furthermore, the infobox currently provides this information, plus a map that includes a caption clarifying its in the United States and "U.S." is added to the infobox. Your concerns about a broad audience are overblown and come across as more making a point, that Wikipedia should overcorrect on its US bias. Lastly, although it covers our article naming conventions, our MOS makes clear that "CITY, STATE, United States" is not common usage, which is clearly reflected in our articles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: with respect, it's your edits here that are pointy: you're fighting to remove two words that, worst-case scenario, tell a US reader something they already know but provide a benefit to others. The country in which something is located is very basic information that should be included in the lead to make it accessible to a broad audience, and recognizing that most of the world will not be familiar with US geography is not in any respect "overcorrecting". The information in the infobox, in most views, is not visible until after the lead, and should not substitute for it; article naming conventions, meanwhile, are completely irrelevant to how things are referred to within an article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, you are fighting to add two words that don't appear to be consistent with the MOS, nor common usage. How about we both assume that each of us has a good reason for our perspective? I am always happy to follow the WP:BRD process and will always engage in discussion on content disputes. My recommendation to you would be to propose an addition to the MOS, maybe at WP:FIRSTSENTENCE that states something like For physical locations, structures, or places, the country of location should be included in the first sentence. For cities in the United States, this should be written as "CITY, STATE, United States" (e.g. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States). This would make things plainly clear and easy to apply. Regardless of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the prevailing usage across Wikipedia is not to include this. At a certain point, overall prevailing usage is consensus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed assuming good faith in believing that you are not deliberately seeking to make the article less accessible, and I do appreciate you personally do not need this context. But it simply is not the case that the absence of an explicit sentence like you propose means that being inclusive is inconsistent with MOS. MOS:INTRO already says exactly the opposite, emphasizing the importance of accessibility, which is why it is indeed common to include country in lead sections - see for example the university whose games this stadium hosted, FA-level sports venues like Lumen Field or Gateshead International Stadium, or much more widely known landmarks like Big Ben or the Eiffel Tower. And there does not seem to be any harm in taking this very small, easy step to help meet the needs of our international audience. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]