Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Prince of Wales F.C.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Prince of Wales F.C.

[edit]
(
)

Moved to mainspace by The C of E (talk). Self nominated at 12:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

  • Mostly fine (date, size - squeaks through, barely, refs, neutrality) but the pipe is not necessary in the hook - please include the original F.C. for clarification. Once this is done, this hook can be automatically upgraded to pass (feel free to add the checkmark or ping me and I'll do it). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This article needs significant copyediting before it is ready for the main page. Also, as Piotrus has noted, the hook is just not interesting as it stands. (Note to Piotrus: DYK nominations should not be approved with uninteresting hooks. In this case, it's pretty much obvious that people who want a football club found it, since it's unlikely that they'd found it if they didn't want one. Finally, there are a few too many factual errors, just looking at FN1: it states that the club was "already in existence in 1892", but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was in existence earlier than 1892, just that they have evidence of its (presumably active) existence in that year, without any evidence of its actual formation. So "pre-1892" in the article is not supported by that source, nor is the statement that Prince of Wales was the first civilian club. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I've looked at the source (FN2) for this, and can't find support for it. My Spanish isn't the best, but "predecesor del Jubilee, que se fundaría un año después" seems more likely to mean "predecessor" as in "established before Jubilee", and the rest "which was founded one year later". There's nothing here that says that any players left Prince of Wales F.C. in order to found Jubilee F.C., just that the one club was founded in 1892 and the other a year afterward. (I briefly digress to note that some sources, like FN2, say the club was founded in 1892, while others, like FN1, only say that it was known to be in existence that year. I find myself wondering whether FN2-type sources are taking a shortcut that isn't confirmed by the historical record.)
Unfortunately, these kinds of errors seem to be rife: that the Rock Cup was only won once, in 1949, when the source is missing upwards of 40 years of cup winners and the club could have won it any number of times during that period, that the team left the league in 1939/1940 when the sources give that as a year they won the championship, and so on. I'm not quite sure what makes newsgroup-based reference like Rsssf a reliable source to begin with, and the various sources disagree on a number of facts, including the last time Prince of Wales F.C. won the championship (1939/1940 vs. 1952/1953). I regret saying this, but the article needs major work to be acceptable for DYK. Saying the team "eventually disbanded" is just not acceptable: it could have been right after the purported 1953 championship, a couple of years or even 50 years later. Per WP:DYKSG#D7, this article does not "deal adequately with the topic". BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, it does deal adequetly with the topic by covering the main points that need to be covered using the limited sources available. Rsssf is a reliable source as it is stating where it got it's information from and I would give that more consideration than the Spanish sources. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Alt2 ... that Prince of Wales F.C. was one of the first civilian football clubs in Gibraltar?

Is someone using Google to translate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And, reverted. Where are you getting "military clubs only around at the time"? I don't see it in the Spanish source; perhaps I'm overlooking it. Please place the exact Spanish quote here that supports this text. Similar for "initially played only by members of the British military forces stationed there", which I don't see in that source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting it from the gfa source. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I've done the significant copyedit I noted the article needed. Unsupported text has been removed, and the article's more concise, a bit more accurate, and now contains 1221 prose characters, too few for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've brought it up to 1661 through filling out the opening and adding info from a new source. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Good job in finding the wartime source. However, you have also added back information that gives a false impression (Jubilee was not a successor to Prince of Wales in the sense that it was related somehow and the source does not say that, it just says that Jubilee was founded a year later than PoW, which is not at all the same thing, and already clearly the case based on what was written by that point), and also a bunch of unnecessary prose. Please note that saying things like "for an unknown reason" isn't acceptable in an article when what it means is that you haven't found a source yet that tells you what the reason was. If you don't know the reason, you just don't mention anything: say what you know, and omit the rest. (It's why "once" is inappropriate with the Rock Cup—all we know is that there was a 1949 win, but the lack of results for decades of the cup doesn't allow the specification of "once".) I've just posted more detail on this to the article's talk page. The article is now 1463 prose characters; given the duplication in the expansion of the intro, it will need to be longer than the minimum 1500 to be acceptable. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Unwatching, BlueMoonset, please ping me if any further Spanish-language checking is required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, SandyGeorgia. The new source is in Polish, so it looks like we're away from Spanish for a while.
The C of E, I have to ask what makes the new 2x45.com.pl source reliable and usable. It refers to Gibraltar Premier League in its original Polish-language text, something that did not exist back in 1895, and thus casts significant doubt on its accuracy in representing the facts from that time. It refers to "soldiers" (żołnierzy) on Gibraltar F.C., but this was a civilian league and teams according to the Wikipedia article as it currently stands, so something's wrong there, too. While interesting, I think the errors and the language difficulties make this a problematic source, and its information too compromised and indeterminate to be safely used. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it is not a direct translation, like the french word for 99, and the reference to soldiers could easily mean that some soldiers did play for Gibraltar F.C. instead of the military clubs. There is an explanation that it is a journalist based news site. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I am very uncomfortable with "could easily", especially when it contradicts the other sources that the teams in the Gibraltar Civilian Football Association were indeed civilian teams, as opposed to military ones. We need definitive information and translations, not guesses. As for the website, are you using Google Translate, or do you know Polish? Because that page you sent me to includes the Google Translate explanation that they're between a "serious" media site and a portal site of some kind. What makes them reliable if they're something less than serious media? What are their standards? These things really do matter. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I have added one extra sentence which, excluding the polish sourced info, takes it over the character limit. If the Polish source and info is removed, will it be acceptable there? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I've just removed the Polish info due to the problems noted above. I have recast and expanded the Lincoln F.C. info (that "one extra sentence") so it at least directly relates to Prince of Wales F.C. rather than simply being in second place in the total championships won, something basically irrelevant to the article's subject. At this point, the article is 1650 prose characters according to DYKcheck, and just crosses the border into long enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to recheck article and to review ALT2. Since I have done a fair amount of editing, I think someone else needs to judge whether the sourcing is adequate—in particular, the rsssf source, since the article is almost entirely dependent on it for information about records and the like. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • RSSSF seems okay, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 30#RSSSF.com. --PFHLai (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • for ALT2. Hook short enough and ref'ed. Article long enough and new enough. Referencing okay. No concerns with neutrality, copyvio, or close paraphrasing. I can only complain about the hook being a tad boring, but I can't come up with a better hook. So be it. --PFHLai (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Prince_of_Wales_F.C.&oldid=939630782"