Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present)

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 00:03, 24 February 2008.

History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present)

previous FAC (00:08, 17 February 2008)

Check external links

I am renominating this article with the permission of Sandy after it was recently failed. I have contacted those who opposed last time and all issues have been addressed. As a recap: The history of Aston Villa is too long to condense into a single article and as such is split into two: History of Aston Villa F.C. (1874-1961) and History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present). It is currently a good article. I think it now meets the FA criteria, I look forward to your comments. Thankyou. Woody (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have read this article in great detail and have made a very small and not significant contribution: [1]. I know very little about football but I think this does not invalidate my views. Until I read the article I never realised just how much goes on off the pitch in this sport. The article describes with drama and clarity the ups and downs of a world famous football club but never strays from a neutral point of view. The contributors should be congratulated on their success in describing over forty years of history so lucidly. --GrahamColm ^Talk 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the article looks fantastic after recent copyedits. My concerns from the previous FAC have been fixed or addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The comments I raised during the last FAC have been resolved; I was going to support then, but found it had already failed when I attempted to do so. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first sentence doesn't seem grammatical. Epbr123 (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems grammatical to me. Which bit do you disagree with? Woody (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've tweaked it.--GrahamColm ^Talk 21:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'including two "Ellis Out" protests, and an "Ellis out" march' - is the differing capitalisation deliberate? Epbr123 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, was an oversight, have fixed it now and added a ref for good measure. Woody (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I gladly supported at GA and while the step up to FA is a big one, the article now manfully strides the gap. My only itsy bitsy inkling of sadness is that there are three red links and if it was me, I'd make stubs for these, but that's certainly not going to stand in the way of my support. Great, patient work. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently creating one of the final articles. Woody (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article: comprehensive, lucidly written, engaging, meticulously referenced = promotion. SoLando (Talk) 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work now. Everything I previously mentioned has been addressed. Just one minor point is the use of inconsistency and inconsistent in the same sentence in the lead regarding Villa in the Premiership. I can't think how to change one so have left, but I'd say a minor amendment would improve readability. Peanut4 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have fixed this.--GrahamColm ^Talk 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good, I was going for erratic but hey. Woody (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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