Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blackburn Olympic F.C./archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 6 September 2009 [1].

---

Blackburn Olympic F.C.

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Blackburn Olympic F.C./archive1

An interesting (hopefully) article about a football club which folded 120 years ago this year but played a very important part in the development of professional sport. It had a PR, at which User:Finetooth commented that there was very little that needed changing, so hopefully it's now ready for FA, but let me know what you think. Cheers!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• The alt text looks quite good (thanks), except that the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right corner of this review page shows that alt text is missing for the two kit diagrams. Please fix this by filling in kit_alt1= and kit_alt2= parameters in the article's call to the {{Infobox football club}} template. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoops - it completely slipped my mind that the kits would also need alt text - is this OK? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that fixed the alt text issues, with just one more tweak to fix a missing "|" that I caught with the "alt text" button. Eubulides (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Comment I meant to comment at Peer Review but didn't get around to it. Even so, I have very few issues to raise, and even then they are minor picky ones.
  • The home colours in the infobox look closer to cyan than light blue.
  • by the leading clubs of the Midlands and north should either have both capitalised or neither.
  • Your sources probably make this clearer than any I have, but for the 1883 Cup Final, was extra time compulsory, or by agreement? Oldelpaso (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for your comments, all addressed now I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support – As a sports history buff, the article was an enjoyable read for me, and appears to meet all criteria. Full disclosure: I made a few tweaks for 1a purposes. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support – I only found minor things, good read, well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Not a good opening: "Blackburn Olympic F.C. was an English association football club based in Blackburn, Lancashire, which existed in the late 19th century. (This overcomes "existed ... extistence", and the forced vagueness of a 100-year window, clarified in the second para (around the 1880s.)
• You could almost get rid of ", however," in the second para, given the "only" before it; up to you (it's 50/50).
• "to legalise professionalism two years later"—so it was illegal until then? Or perhaps "to legitimate" or "endorse" or "set the rules for"?
• Another ", however," only four seconds later. And I noted two "only"s above (whichd was OK, but do watch those close repetitions).
• Comma after "era" because the final clause is such a major statement? Slow down the reader?
• "Existence" for a third time. "For most of that decade"? Or remove that phrase altogether if it's assumed ...
• Readers have to hit the "strip" link to find out what it means? Still link, but can't it be kinder ... "strip (uniform)" or even "(kit)". Unsure.
• Subtle point: "The club's first-choice strip consisted of light blue shirts and white shorts from 1880 onwards."—If you put the time-phrase first, as the grammatical "theme" (point of departure), there will be no sense that they had a first-choice strip before 1880. "From 1880 onwards, the club's ...".
• Why the tiny tiny images? MoS's guidelines have been clarified on this recently. I'd be going for 240–280px (or "upright=1.2–1.5").
• "where for the first time they faced opponents from the south of England in the form of Old Carthusians."—"in the form of" is a bit laboured in this context (or precious, even); replace with a dash?
• "However" best first in a sentence; some pedant in the early 20th C said to next it in commas as the second element. Should have been horse-whipped. Best to give the readers the angle up-front.
• "the first occasion on which a northern team had reached the final." --> "the first time a northern ...".

So ... I have no time to sift through the rest at the moment. This should be promoted, I think, but needs an independent run-through—not a long job, since much of it is very well written. It's good. Tony (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Tony, I'm presuming you didn't mean to score through most of them. I've tweaked the lead in line with your suggestions. As for the images, I thought we weren't supposed to "force" the size of images other than potentially the lead image..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES has changed—if necessary, you can set the sizes of the images. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Image comments

• All images free, with suitable author/copyright info. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.