Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Burnley F.C./archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2020 [1].

Burnley F.C.

[edit]
Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about English football club Burnley, which competes in the Premier League, the first tier. It's a club from a small town but with a rather interesting and large history. The article was passed as GA at the beginning of the year, and received a peer review (thanks Kosack, Paul W and No Great Shaker) and a copy edit (thank you Twofingered Typist) since. I also want to thank my mentor, Casliber, for making the article better. I look forward to any comments! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by No Great Shaker

[edit]

I haven't taken part in an FAC discussion before, though I have a lot of experience at GAR and, as WA8MTWAYC kindly points out, I've tried to help out at peer review too. Please bear with me while I gain some idea of how FAR works but I will make a few initial comments about the nomination.

The content is well within scope and I think the coverage is both extensive and useful. While there is considerable detail, it is sufficient for the purpose of completing scope. As far as I can tell, the information is accurate and is adequately sourced. Overall, it is an interesting read (however, I concede that as a football supporter myself from a neighbouring town, I would find it interesting, especially as I've visited Turf Moor many times). I believe, based on past reviews, that the images are all acceptable – they are certainly relevant. The narrative is written well enough for GA purposes but I will be interested to see if FA requires a higher standard, though I would hope no one expects something that might contend for the Booker Prize or whatever.

I will see what more experienced FAR contributors say before committing myself but I would think this article is certainly in with a chance of success. Well done, WA8MTWAYC, and good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your very kind words, No Great Shaker! Glad you enjoyed the article. I'll kindly await your eventual follow-up. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading the "Supporters and rivalries" section again and made a few minor amendments to wording and syntax. Still have this on watch and will be back. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reading the article again and I think it's there. Really pleased to support now. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lee Vilenski. I'm looking forward to your feedback, and I'll gladly take a look at your work sometime this weekend. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I hope you don't mind I made some amends here regarding readability) Thanks very much for your comments, Lee Vilenski. It's all resolved now and I left comments under your points. If there's anything further I need to change, please let me know. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]

These are some points I picked out, but I'm not seeing a huge amount that would really stop me from supporting. This is a good, thorough piece of work. Kosack (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, Kosack. I've addressed them all and left comments under your points. If there's anything further I need to amend, please let me know. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kosack, have you got anything else for me? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant to get back to this sooner. I don't think there's anything else for me, happy to support. Kosack (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I've added this to the image/source reviews requests to get some, and also to the urgents list in order to scare up a review (hopefully) from someone not connected with the sports area. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth Do we only need a source review now? Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Hog Farm

[edit]

I know next to nothing about this subject, but I'll take a crack at this anyway once I get the chance. Will probably be claimed for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 16:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and was one of the 12 founder members" - Should this be "founding members"? In American English, founding members would be correct.
Should be "founder members" in GB. The term "charter members" is sometimes used nowadays but that's related more to business. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Harry Windle was named chairman in 1909, after which the club's finances turned around" - It seems weird to talk about how the finances turned around when there's no mention of them being bad in the first place.
Added the necessary information in the previous sentence. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a then English record" - Personally, I think "then an English record" would read better, but maybe that's just an Americanism.
I would stick with "a then English record" as a common GB idiom. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They travelled to the United States after the season ended to participate in the International Soccer League, the first modern international American football tournament" - How did they do in the tournament?
They finished second in their group (out of six) and were thus eliminated. I've omitted the result as it's in my opinion not relevant. The interesting thing is that Burnley were invited because of their status and took part in that inaugural/pioneering tournament. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that the "Player of the Year" table is really relevant. It's exclusively a fan vote, and it's only for this team. Since it's only a club-level award, it doesn't appear super relevant.
It's the second time I received a comment about this, so decided to remove it from the page (and to maybe later create its own article). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like you should mention winning the Anglo-Scottish Cup in the prose.
Could do but it was a very minor competition. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As No Great Shaker points out, it was a minor honour, so it's not needed to put it in the prose. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the first two paragraphs of the in media section is relevant. It's mostly unrelated trivia about how people wore Burnley gear on various TV shows. We don't have a list of "everytime someone was worn a Yankees cap on TV" at New York Yankees, for the same reasons. The third paragraph of this should then be moved elsewhere in this article.
I think I'll have to concede here. Some of the similar FAs also don't have this section, so I deleted it. I relocated the third paragraph to Lord's own Wiki page, as it had more to do with Lord himself than the club. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm finding here. Willing to discuss any of these. If you'd fancy returning the favor, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Battle of Newtonia/archive1 needs another review. Hog Farm Bacon 22:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review, Hog Farm. I hope you enjoyed the article. I've addressed all your points and left some comments here. If there is anything else I need to change, please let me know. I'll take a look at your work in the next days. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]
I couldn't find more information, so decided to remove the image from the article. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced of the fair use rationale of File:Burnley F.C. Logo.svg, since there is a free variation of the logo used elsewhere in the article. It therefore seems to fail WP:NFCC#1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (I am not convinced that the difference is significant enough that there is an encyclopedic purpose to keeping the .svg logo). Sorry, my mistake
The similar image (I presume you mean this one) depicts the town's coat of arms. The club's badge is based on that, so they're very similar but not the same. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the image review, Buidhe. I've addressed your points. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the sourcing

[edit]

I've taken a peek at the source usage in the article. A rather large amount of sources are either the website of the club or Simpson 2007 which apparently is an affiliated source - sometimes that bespeaks a certain positive bias in coverage but sometimes it implies that the source is experienced in the topic. Otherwise I see national and local newspapers and websites. I question #135 and #134 - a press release by an involved company doesn't seem to be a very good justification for including the producer of the shirts in the article. What makes #142, #156, #180 and #182 (some other references come from that website) a reliable source? #145 I have to wonder where it gets its information from. Is Tim Quelch a good author to use as a source? As it's quite late here in Switzerland, I won't be doing a spot-check except upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks very much for taking a look! It's much appreciated.
  • A large part of the sources are indeed yielded from the club website or from the former club historian's book. Burnley is not the biggest nor the most mentioned English club, so in order to give a comprehensive view I had to use those sources a majority of the time.
  • 134 and 135: Soccerex is not connected with the club. I've used the Umbro website to imply that they have manufactured Burnley's kits since 2019 (as is stated in the prose). If you want me to change the source, I won't oppose doing so.
    The thing I am wondering is whether a FA article requires this kind of rather trivial information, sourced to the website of the company that produces the things. Because one could interpret that as promotion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jo-Jo Eumerus Do you think it would be better to remove the last sentence then? ("Since 2019 ... sleeve sponsor.") WA8MTWAYC (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I'd cut that entire information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jo-Jo Eumerus I'm sorry, but I don't fully agree with that. The paragraph gives in my opinion a broader/more comprehensive view of the club's kit history. Plus every football club page (also the featured ones) has that information. I just think it's part of the kit section. However, I do agree that the last sentence is redundant and can be removed. Is it OK with you if only the last part is deleted? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since 2019, the club's shirts have been supplied by Umbro, while the Asian betting brand LoveBet has been the chest and sleeve sponsor is the "last part" in question? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jo-Jo Eumerus Yes, it is. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it was that part that raised some concerns about promotion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jo-Jo Eumerus I've removed that sentence. I hope everything else is up to your satisfaction now. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. Do note that I am not really an expert on football-related sourcing at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I don't think the sourcing is much different than in other areas, the only thing is that "we" make more use of online news sites for the state of current affairs. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 142: More information about its author, Han van Eijden, can be found here. His book is on Amazon, but was apparently never published, so that's why he created this website. Furthermore, he has been corresponding for Dutch and British (football) magazines/papers.
  • 145: The owners of the site have used a variety of reliable sources, see here.
  • 156: MyBurnley was created by the club itself "to help Burnley Football Club interact with supporters from all over the world." It gives a global overview of Burnley's overseas supporters' clubs and their locations.
  • 180: The Football Fans Census is a market research company which specialises in research into the views and opinions of English football supporters.
  • 182: 11v11 is the official website of the Association of Football Statisticians.
  • Tim Quelch has written about multiple sporting subjects, such as English cricket. Most of his books are published by Pitch Publishing, who are quite renowned in the sports area.
  • I don't know if the coords think a spot-check is necessary. If so, then I would greatly appreciate if you would like to do it, but I understand if it isn't possible. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WA8MTWAYC: - If Jo-Jo Eumerus isn't able to do spot-checks, and the coords would like one done, I can try to do a few. Hog Farm Bacon 21:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

[edit]
  • "Potts often employed the then unfashionable 4–4–2 formation and he implemented a Total Football playing style" - Checks out
  • "The team avoided relegation to the Football Conference, the highest level of non-league football, on the last day in 1986–87, after they won against Orient and their rivals drew or lost" - Checks out
  • "The team have played their home games at Turf Moor since February 1883, which replaced their original premises at Calder Vale" - Supported by reference
  • "It is possibly the earliest recorded case of match fixing in football" - Okay
  • "Four years later, Willie Irvine became top goal scorer in the first tier, also a unique feat in the club's history." - Supported

I've checked these with no issues, so I'm comfortable with saying that the spot checks are clean. Good work. Hog Farm Bacon 18:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Burnley_F.C./archive2&oldid=982316143"