Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chelsea F.C.
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.
Already a GA. Has just had a peer review which has added references and resloved issues with some images. Buc 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object- I think it's a very well-written article, and it kept my interest though it's not a topic that appeals to me. However, even with 44 cites it is under referenced, and the refs that you do have need serious attention, asthere is a lot of required information that is missing. The lead also needs expansion, in order to better reflect what is in the body of the article. It also, in my eyes, becomes sort of "table-ish" at the end. Lastly, I would like to know why it is a protected page--that certainly implies lack of stability. You realize it cant be protected when it's on the mainpage? Jeffpw 10:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I think it is semi-protected due to disagreement over mentioning the nickname CHELSKI.Buc 13:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is protected because it's a regular target for vandalism. SteveO 13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is semi-protected due to disagreement over mentioning the nickname CHELSKI.Buc 13:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - With 44 cites it has more than two other football Featured articles Everton F.C. and Arsenal F.C.. Note that it has book references as well. I think this looks OK, although
I don't like the list of celebrity fans. Celebrity fan sections are notoriously unverifiable and fairly trivial.HornetMike 11:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Seven paragraphs have no cites at all, and the section Crests has only one ref. Also note I mentioned there is information missing from the footnotes themselves. How is a reader supposed to verify something like ^ R. Glanvill (2006), pp. 84-87? Is that a book? An article? I see there is a book with that author in the "References" section. The info needs to be plugged into the footnotes, and left out of the references area. Jeffpw 12:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As always with FAC lack of references is the only real problem. I'd be happy to fix this if you could tell me where references are needed, or better yet add "citation needed" tags to the article.Buc 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stamford Bridge: paragraph 4- History:
Paragraph 3 - Crest section
as mentioned above, the entire section has only one ref. - In Popular culture:
Paragraphs 3 and 4 - I also noticed some prose problems. Perhaps you want to copyedit for prose.
Here is one example: which particularly came into its own during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. That just sounds rather unencyclopedic, to my ears.I don't mean to be a grouch, and I did enjoy the article. I just feel it could use a few improvements. Jeffpw 13:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to add Jeffpw's requested refs. SteveO 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck areas have now been cited. SteveO 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If a book is cited multiple times then only the first citation need be in full, all subsequent citations can be abbreviated to avoid clutter and reduce article size. It's just a case of looking up through the preceding footnotes until you find the matching full citation. Plenty of FAs employ this system, and I have reabbreviated many of the references accordingly. Qwghlm 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Support - I think it is harder to ref articles like this than some of the more scientific one. I think it fulfils the criteria and is well balanced, comprehensive, neutral and readable. I give you permission to strike out the 'conditional' once the ref is sorted ;) cheers Cas Liber 12:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Might have helped if you'd specified exactly where in these paragraphs but thank anyway. I've added cn tag where I think you ment them to be. I'll see what I can find.Buc 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the areas I mentioned had no references whatsoever, any additions would only be to the good. To paraphrase WP:CITE, references increase the authority and veracity of Wikipedia. I also noticed an external jump in the Crests section. You should either use that as a reference, or add it to the external links. Jumps are frowned upon in articles on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cited what in the areas mentioned I thought needed it. Except one about Ken Bates being advised he hadn't acquired copyright, which I couldn't find anything for.Buc 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the areas I mentioned had no references whatsoever, any additions would only be to the good. To paraphrase WP:CITE, references increase the authority and veracity of Wikipedia. I also noticed an external jump in the Crests section. You should either use that as a reference, or add it to the external links. Jumps are frowned upon in articles on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Might have helped if you'd specified exactly where in these paragraphs but thank anyway. I've added cn tag where I think you ment them to be. I'll see what I can find.Buc 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposefor the time being as undercited (particularly the In Popular Culture section). Trebor 15:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm on the verge of supporting, could you just tidy up a few things:The club began with... - this is a jarring sentence, which essentially says that Chelsea got promoted (good) but achieved little early success (bad) except for an FA cup final (good) which they lost (bad). It could be rephrased (perhaps into two sentences) to say their success was limited: certain things were good, certain things were bad.Chelsea were, at the nadir of their fortune - is the wiktionary link necessary? Could we just assume people know what it means? Or use a simpler word?Bates finally reunited - can we have a more specific date than "finally"?The north, west and southern parts of the ground were converted into all-seater stands and moved closer to the pitch, and the current legal capacity of Stamford Bridge is 42,055 - abrupt switch from history to current detail, which could be improved.Chelsea are generally a well-supported club - are they sometimes not then? I don't think "generally" adds anything new.
- Thanks. Trebor 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very good article. Trebor 17:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - StevO, please don't strike my comments. I am perfectly capable of striking my own remarks, if I feel the matters have been addressed to my satisfaction. Jeffpw 21:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case please strike Stamford Bridge paragraph 4. The sentence about the main road and railway line making constraints for further expansion need a reference. I can't see anything eles though.Buc 08:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref added for constraints on expansion. The lead has also been expanded per Jeffpw's comments. SteveO 11:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article now has 62 references and all of the above objections seem to have been rectified. Are there any further comments? SteveO 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the colours section an image of the kit described in the second paragraph 82.6.170.90 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article now has 62 references and all of the above objections seem to have been rectified. Are there any further comments? SteveO 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref added for constraints on expansion. The lead has also been expanded per Jeffpw's comments. SteveO 11:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case please strike Stamford Bridge paragraph 4. The sentence about the main road and railway line making constraints for further expansion need a reference. I can't see anything eles though.Buc 08:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
***** I'm a bit concerned about this new English football champions template that's just appeared. Is it really nessercery? Buc 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is. The bottom of the page looks cluttered as it is. SteveO 22:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment I'm leaning support, but I don't think the rivalries are sufficiently important to be part of the lead (I think Leeds fans would be surprised to see themselves mentioned in the lead) - a better choice from the Supporters section would be something like "Chelsea are one of the best supported clubs in the United Kingdom, with an estimated UK fanbase of four million". Oldelpaso 10:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of Trebor Rowntree and Oldelpaso's suggested improvements have been added. How is it now? SteveO 11:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looking good. Oldelpaso 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about my suggestion?82.6.170.90 15:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which kit are you referring to? Several are described in the second paragraph. SteveO 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Either "The mint green strip in the 1980s" or "the red and white checked one" 82.6.170.90 21:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what merit there would be in adding an away kit which only lasted 1-2 years. What do others think? SteveO 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Either "The mint green strip in the 1980s" or "the red and white checked one" 82.6.170.90 21:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which kit are you referring to? Several are described in the second paragraph. SteveO 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about my suggestion?82.6.170.90 15:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looking good. Oldelpaso 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentNotable managers trophies has just been added. Not sure if the Full Members Cup should be in there. Buc 10:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added it in, and thought it best for completeness, but have no strong feelings on the matter, and will go with what others think. Qwghlm 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SteveO are you sure the second division title is really notable enough? Buc 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the Second Division is listed in the club honours section. Imo it does no harm in being there. SteveO 23:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of Trebor Rowntree and Oldelpaso's suggested improvements have been added. How is it now? SteveO 11:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well written, some good images and very well-referenced. Qwghlm 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support though i dislike this club it is a well written article. some pictures of players would be nice though - or for that matter, abramovich the owner, mourinho the manager... aren't they synonymous with chelsea as they are today? Chensiyuan 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.