Template:Did you know nominations/Fermanagh Mallards F.C.

The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Fermanagh Mallards F.C.

(

)

... that the Fermanagh Mallards were thrown out of the Women's Premier League after failing to travel to Belfast for a football match?

Reviewed: Noel Money

Created by The C of E (talk). Self nominated at 00:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC).

Good to go, hook cited and length is ok. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Should the hook be "that the Fermanagh Mallards"? Otherwise it doesn't quite work.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it is a football club so they don't usually use that. for example Arsenal isn't referred to as "the Arsenal" on Wikipedia. But if you think so, I won't object. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point, my concern was that since it was a plural name, it should have a the to show it is a singular entity - the example I was thinking of was to say perhaps the Wolverhampton Wanderers had been demoted, which sounds better with a the. Anyone more experienced fancy weighing in? --Gilderien Talk|List of good deeds 12:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In that context, I did a quick Wikipedia search for "the Wolverhampton Wanderers" and in the articles it came up with, WW only had "the" in front of it when it was used as possessive (ie. the WW Academy and the WW manager) and not on its own as this is. I've put a request for another opinion on the DYK talk. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Grammarwise, it should have a "the". You wouldn't say "that Los Angeles Rams were thrown out of their league". Yoninah (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Very well. I'll accept that. I have restored the "the", can someone please restore the green tick? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, restored – based on my AGF that the review above is accurate. Looks good to go! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

However, it currently fails supplementary rule C2, as it doesn't mention what sport it is talking about. Harrias ^talk 17:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant, tick restored, following cursory review and AGF for review above. Harrias ^talk 18:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for slowing down this nomination, but the review that everyone is accepting AGF is really scanty: "hook cited and length is ok". Really? The page is just over 1500 characters (1508, to be exact), and should be fleshed out more. There is a gap in the history from the 2005 founding until the first event mentioned in 2009. There is also close paraphrasing in several places, which I will attempt to edit out now. Otherwise, article is new enough. Hook ref verified and cited inline. QPQ done. Yoninah (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent expansion, C of E. The rankings from 2005 to 2008 really improve the article both in quality and length. Hook ref verified and cited inline. I linked Women's Premier League and Belfast. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)