Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cardiff City 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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2017 [1].

Cardiff City F.C.

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Welsh football club that competes in the English Football League. I have recently rebuilt the page and it was promoted to GA status soon after. I was encouraged by the reviewer and another editor to make an attempt at becoming a featured article. I look forward to any suggestions for improvement. Kosack (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I reviewed this for GA status and found it well-researched, comprehensive and a pleasant read. I can't find any other quibbles (ensure you change all-caps titles in references to title case though..) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lemonade51 - always nice to see a football nom here, not a detailed review:

The usual issue when it comes to sports articles, are clubs singular or plural? The first paragraph of the history section reads "The club was founded in 1899 as Riverside A.F.C.," yet under that there's "Despite their exploits in Europe, the club were still struggling in league competition". I'm not sure what WP:FOOTY's consensus on this is, but consistency is vital. Maybe @Struway2: could shed some light?
- More heat than light, probably... I doubt if WP:FOOTY has a view, but both usages are grammatically correct. In the first, the club refers to a single entity, so takes a singular verb. In the second, it refers to Cardiff City's football team, which has a collective meaning and in British English takes a plural verb: who are Cardiff playing on Saturday. Having said that, to avoid the appearance of inconsistency without drifting into mid-Atlantic grammar, it might be an idea to restrict the words "the club" to when you're talking about the entity that is Cardiff City Football Club, and use "Cardiff" or "the team" when you're talking about what the football team did. Or if you do use "the club" when writing about what the football team did, only do it if the verb form is the same for both singular and plural :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is "South Wales FA" the same as South Wales and Monmouthshire Football Association? If so, wikilink it.
When did Cardiff stop participating in the Welsh Cup, and why? If they qualify for Europe like Swansea did, do they represent England? Think the answers to these questions could be included somewhere.
Bit about Thames being Cardiff's record league win: it's mentioned twice in the article (which isn't a problem), but the club are wikilinked twice.
Cardiff's win against Real, "Despite going out after losing the second leg 2–0 the result would still go down in the club's history," doesn't really add anything. Every game Cardiff play will go down in history if you get my drift. I'd rephrase that line.
Looking at recent seasons: "On 18 August 2013, Cardiff played their first ever Premier League match away to West Ham United, losing 2–0.[33] However, Cardiff won only three games in the first half of the season...," however is unnecessary here.
The other concern I have is sourcing. Crosschecked the sentence "In June 2009, the club completed construction of a state-of-the-art 26,828 seater stadium on the site of the now-demolished old Cardiff Athletics Stadium at a cost of £48 million," and the capacity is nowhere to be found in the source.
Source formatting is a minor problem. Footnote 39 and 41 for instance use different parameters for BBC Sport. The Guardian and The Independent are newspapers so they need newspaper= parameter.

This is not far off meeting the criteria, but it needs another once-over from you. Go over the sources, format them consistently and make sure the material in the article is covered by it. There are some sentences that are excessively long and could do with trimming, namely in the 'Colours, kit and crest' section. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the reviews both, I'll get onto those improvements as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonade51: I've implemented all of the improvements you noted above and given the article a bit of a once over, rewording and adding refs where required. Hopefully it's considerably better than it was. Kosack (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~Second "the" should be removed in "the most recent being in the 2013–14".~~
~~1920's success & later decline: Should the apostrophe be in this subsection header?~~
~~Typo in "suspnded" towards the end of this subsection.~~
~~Post war & European competition: Another excess "the" in "one of the most famous victories in the Cardiff's history".~~
~~Is "present" missing from the Recent history section title? It looks odd to have 2000–: there. Maybe it's because the formatting is a little different than the other section titles.~~
I'm seeing a bit of repetitive language in various places, such as "Hammam invested heavily in the team, investing in new players". A little more variety in word choice would be good, both here and in a few other places.
~~Ninian Park: Is "of" missing from "due to the scaling down grounds"?~~
~~Not doing a full source review here, but I'll note that the bibliography should probably be in alphabetical order.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 23:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks for the review, I've fixed all of the typos and errors listed above. I've changed some of the more repetitive lines that I could find, if there's anymore let me know. Kosack (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

A few pedantic points

"BBC Sport" should not be italicised in the references (refs 40, 42, check for others)
Neither should "WalesOnline" – ref 70, check for others
No citations to the Grahame Lloyd book C'mon City... which shouldn't be listed as a source
Same thing with the David Collins book. Both Lloyd and Collins could be listed as further reading.

Reliability: A number of online statistical sites are referenced. I am not at this stage questioning their reliability, but I'd like a little more information about these sites, in particular who, in each case, is the publisher with ultimate responsibility for site content. The websites I have in mind are:

English Football League Tables
Welsh Football Data Archive
Historic Football Kits
The Football Fan Census
11 v 11

Brianboulton (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I've fixed the issues raised above. In regards to the sources used:

English Football League Tables I'm unsure of the website publisher, I can replace this ref if necessary
The Welsh Football Data Archive is compiled by a research team which is listed HERE
Historical Football Kits I'm also unaware of but I believe it's considered a reliable source and is used in other features articles such as York City F.C. and Luton Town F.C. and it includes its sources at the bottom of the page Here
The Football Fan Census is run by a company of the same name.
11 v 11 is the official website of the Association of Football Statisticians.

Kosack (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to accept the opinions of other editors with more expertise in football articles than mine, as to the reliability of these sources. If they don't object, I won't. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for six weeks without attracting much comment, and there is unfortunately no consensus to promote. Therefore I will be archiving shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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