Talk:A.F.C. Sudbury/GA1

GA Review

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

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• The club was formed in 1999 by the merger of Sudbury Town and Sudbury Wanderers,[1] the process giving rise to the name Amalgamated Football Club Sudbury. - only the title should be bolded, the bolded terms in this sentence should not
  •  Done Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Their home ground is the King's Marsh Stadium in the Ballingdon part of Sudbury and their home colours are yellow and blue. - reword to Their home ground is the King's Marsh Stadium in the Ballingdon, which is a part of Sudbury; their home colours are yellow and blue.
  •  Done well, I've reworded somewhere between the original and this suggestion. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• The club competes in the Southern Football League Division One Midlands having been transferred from the Isthmian League Division One North after the end of the 2007–08 season. - comma before having been

History

• The club's relatively short history has, thus far, been very successful. - very successful is WP:POV, reword
  •  Done Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• In their debut season (1999–2000) Sudbury finished in 3rd place in the Eastern Counties League Premier Division. - 1)comma after the dates 2)3rd-->third
  •  Done Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• The following 5 seasons all resulted in Sudbury winning the same league's title - a league record. - 1)5-->five 2)link to the league's title?
  •  Done League is already linked in previous sentence. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• After finishing 3rd in 2005–06, and passing the necessary ground inspection, Sudbury were invited to take promotion into a resurrected Isthmian League Division One North, following the re-structuring of the National League System. 3rd-->third
  •  Done Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Sudbury again qualified for the play-offs in 2007–08, finishing 2nd in the table, but were defeated in the semi-final by eventual winners Canvey Island. - 2nd-->second
  •  Done Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• In the close-season manager Morsley resigned[9] and was replaced by his assistant, Nicky Smith. - 1)link to close-season? 2)comm after close-season
  • linked close-season, but I disagree about the necessity of the comma. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Sudbury were moved into the Southern Football League Division One Midlands for 2008–09 following a restructuring of the English football pyramid. - comma before following In addition, move this to the end of the preceding paragraph or the beginning of the next paragraph, theres no need for this to be a stand alone sentence
  • moved sentence, but I disagree about the necessity of the comma. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• In 2000–01 the club reached the first round proper of the FA Cup before being comprehensively defeated away at Darlington. - comma before
• Can this section be expanded more, like with more in-depth information about the team, not just their playing history, but financial history, business history (owner of the club, etc.)
  • I doubt there is much information about this in circulation. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Team colors

• Perhaps surprisingly, these were the colours of both the former Sudbury teams. - Perhaps surprisingly is WP:POV, reword to something like "Coincidentally.."
  •  Done Dancarney (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• What is verifying this information? There is no image of the uniform to verify it.
  •  Done Reworded and referenced. Couldn't find information on both former teams, so have excluded Wanderers for the meantime. Dancarney (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• This needs to be expanded, add more about the uniforms. Where they are produced, more on their description, etc.
  • I don't think where the team's kit is produced is in any way notable.Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ground

• At the time of A.F.C. Sudbury's formation the ground consisted of two pitches, a training area, clubhouse, floodlights, a 200-seat stand on the West side of the main pitch and covered ends behind the goals. - comma after formation
  • Disagree about this requiring a comma. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• A 300-capacity terrace (The Shed) was constructed on the East side of the pitch in 2000 and houses the more vocal section of the crowd. - comma before "and"
  • Disagree about this requiring a comma. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• The ground is enclosed by fencing and there are three turnstiles. - 1)comma before and 2)Where are the turnstiles? 3)What is verifying this?
  •  Done Clarified and ref'd but disagree with the comma. Dancarney (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• A planning permission request was lodged with Babergh District Council in May 2008 for the construction of the new facilities - so what's the follow up on this request?

**As far as I'm aware, and with the lack of any other information, this has yet to go further. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• •  Done Permission granted with provisos, which is now noted in the article. Dancarney (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Achievements

• These achievements should be formatted like "World Championship: 2000-01, 2004-05"
  • The format is currently along the lines of that of FA Aston Villa F.C..Dancarney (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• I'm skeptical about the biggest defeat/lost, as it seems WP:TRIVIA (trivial)
  • This is pretty standard fare for football team records.Dancarney (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Sources for the achievements?
  •  Done Dancarney (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

League history

• The note should be in a {{ref}} and {{note}} format
  •  Done Dancarney (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reword the note to The club turned down the opportunity of promotion due to financial reasons.
  •  Done Dancarney (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

References

• What makes "Football Club History Database" reliable?
  • The database been repeatedly approved as reliable by User:Ealdgyth, who assesses the reliability of all sources in Featured Article Candidates. User:ChrisTheDude presented the following argument, which was accepted for FAC

    FCHD is regarded as the most definitive source for historical club-by-club/season-by-season data in English football. Please consider these football clubs' official sites: Cobham F.C., whose history page starts "For a full breakdown of Cobham's history in the league and FA competitions, check out the Football Club History Database." Abingdon Town F.C., which refers readers from their history page to the FCHD for major milestones and cup results. Biggleswade United F.C. says "For a breakdown of our history in senior football go to the Football Club History Database website". Langney Sports F.C. takes its historical data from FCHD. The South West Peninsula League website takes the entirety of its historical data straight from FCHD. There are many more.

Dancarney (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• The sources need to be properly formatted with the {{cite web}} template.
  •  DoneDancarney (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Response

• I agree with the disagreements on commas, I was misreading the sentences. I review at WP:FLC, so I get confused as to the summary prose of a list and an article like this one.
• I disagree with the format comment about the achievements. Just because one article has it like that doesn't mean all of them should be like that, this would well like the ones in the professional wrestling accomplishments section, like it is here.
• Okay, thanks for clarifying that comment about the source.
• Awaiting replies to other unanswered comments.--TRUCO 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note - the formatting of the honours section is standard throughout football club articles (and is according to the football club manual of style). The main advantage to just listing singular titles is that it allows multiple competitions under the same league to be compiled under one heading, e.g.

• Eastern Counties League
  • Premier Division champions 2000-01
  • Division One champions 1999-2000
  • League Cup winners 2001-02.

• пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Followup

• The biggest defeat/lost needs a reference for verifiability.
• I still feel the team colors/uniform section needs to be expanded, like where the blue trim is located, and other features of their uniform.
• Other than that, the article is okay.--TRUCO 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the biggest win/loss, as I couldn't find a source, and I've corrected some of your erroneous comma usage. I don't think that precise details of a semi-professional football club's kit are worth commenting on. Dancarney (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As I'd hate to see a nomination fail on such a trivial point, I've added in a bit more detail, don't know if it helps at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Per prose comments above.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Some MOS issues in the prose above.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Some are questionable sources and formatting of sources is incorrect.

   C. No original research:

   There is some WP:POV and unsourced statements.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The article could be expanded to say more about their history.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   A couple of WP:POV issues.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I would fail this article, but I believe it may have a chance. On hold for 7 days.TRUCO 17:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll pass the article as it now meets WP:WIAGA, but the some of the publishers in the references should be fixed, as in the publishers should say the publisher name not the URL of the websites.--TRUCO 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)