Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liverpool F.C./archive3

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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 6 January 2009 [1].

Liverpool F.C.

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:NapHit
previous FAC (00:55, 23 December 2007)

This is probably the umpteenth candidacy this article has now gone through but I feel the article is in the best state it has been in for while. I have gone through the article and addressed numerous problems which existed before and have hopefully I have rectified them. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • As a 'pool fan, I think the Everton rivalry is just a bit more important/notable than the Man U rivalry (it is one of the only derbies in the country without fan segregation).
    • "The match was against Juvenus at the Heysel Stadium before kick-off, disaster struck. Liverpool fans breached a fence separating the two groups of supporters and charged the Juventus fans.": read it carefully. A colon might be nice.
    • "However, Liverpool's successes were overshadowed by the Hillsborough Disaster. On 15 April 1989, when Liverpool were playing Nottingham Forest in an FA Cup semi-final, hundreds of Liverpool fans were crushed against perimeter fencing." -> "Liverpool's successes were overshadowed by the Hillsborough disaster: in an FA Cup semi-final against Nottingham Forest on 15 April 1989, hundreds of Liverpool fans were crushed..."
    • It may be prudent to point out that the Kop is the original and/or most notable.
    • Again, it may be prudent to also mention the Sun boycott in Merseyside.
  • Hope this helps. The last two aren't really needed, but are recomemndations. Sceptre (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the comments I've addressed them all NapHit (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, I suggest you follow Tony1's prose-writing tips. There are quite a few "however"s in the article, which are sometimes frowned upon. Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 15 (Taylor's interim report...) is lacking a publisher.
added publisher NapHit (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
replaced NapHit (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with book source. NapHit (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this discussion before and since then the website has been featured on the club's official website. NapHit (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
replaced with ITV ref NapHit (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes, such as UEFA, or FIFA.
Spelt out abbreviations NapHit (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
replaced with BBC ref NapHit (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 62 (Through the Wind...) is lacking a publisher.
replaced with BBC ref
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the comments I've addressed them all

Oppose Conditional Support. This is an engaging, comprehensive article. The referencing problems highlighted by Ealdgyth must be addressed and problems with the prose remain. I have done a little copy-editing of the article, and would have liked to have done more, but I'm very busy in other Wikipedia areas at the moment and cannot give the article my full attention that it deserves. I suggest asking another established editor who is new to the article to review the prose. Please don't take this personally—it's amazing what a fresh pair of eyes can bring to an article. Graham Colm Talk 21:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm willing to do copyediting and other tasks on this article, as suggested by Graham above. I am completely new to the article, but am familiar with the subject matter. I have made a few changes already, and will be available over the course of the FAC to try to make more improvements. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Wish I had time to do some cleanup work, but I'm in a similar position as Graham; I'm swamped with reviews at the moment and can only focus on not falling too far behind. Here are my initial recommendations:

  • "two FA Cups and the club's first European trophy the UEFA Cup." Try "two FA Cups and a UEFA Cup, the club's first European trophy."
  • "having won four European Cups from between 1977 and 1984." Something looks off; I think from is the problem and should be removed.
  • I'm not sure about capitalization in Heysel Stadium Disaster. Is Disaster frequently capitalized here, like the Hillsborough Disaster apparently is? I'm not familiar enough with the event to know.
  • "At the Heysel Stadium Disaster, 39 Juventus fans died when a wall collapsed in the 1985 European Cup Final." Should be "when a wall collapsed before the 1985 European Cup Final."
  • History: Comma after John Houlding.
  • Non-breaking space needed for $218.9 million (where Gillett and Hicks bought the club). I used one here, in case an example is needed. This is something to check for throughout.
  • Photo comment: Where was the photo of the 1892–93 squad published? It needs a source to prove that it's out of copyright.
Not sure if this suffices? can't find a publisher. NapHit (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will. Proof needs to be provided that the photo was published more than 70 years ago; the link doesn't seem to indicate that. I'm not a photo expert, but I can see that from looking at the template in the file. Are there any books or newspapers from the time that published the photo? Those are the best places to look. If nothing can be found, the picture might need to be removed. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to come back here, but please don't expect too much from me, since I have many other articles to re-review. If I have time, I'll go over the article later in the week and try to make improvements to the prose. Best of luck. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just made a quick cleanup pass and took care of some minor things (en dashes in piped links, couple of easy grammar fixes, etc.). Still want to come back and read it again, but hopefully the edits are helpful. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colours and crest: "and the home kit has been all red since the mid 1960s; but red has not always featured." Change the semi-colon to a regular comma. And should it be "has not always been featured."?
  • George Gillett or George Gillett Jr? Both are used at various times.
  • There are also still some capitalization differences involving the stadium disasters.
  • Statistics and records: "Liverpool's first competitive game was in the Lancashire League against Higher Walton, they won the match 8–0." Comma should be a semi-colon.
  • "Ian Rush, who scored 346 goals whilst at the club from 1980 to 1987 and 1988 to 1996." Remove the second comma and change whilst to while.
I must be fried, because I'm not finding anything else at this time. I'll have to read it again later and see what I'm missing. By the way, my first round of comments was addressed, even though NapHit didn't explicitly type that in his message above. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the comments Giants I have addressed your comments. NapHit (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 File:Liverpool 1892-1893.jpg - We need a source for this image. Awadewit (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed image and replaced with another image. NapHit (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New image checks out - struck oppose. Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Not happy with the prose, samples starting from the Ownership section down:

  • Tense inconsistencies: "Liverpool is owned by George Gillett and Tom Hicks" but "Liverpool have often featured"
  • "Tensions between the Americans and their lack of support and their lack of support from the fans" Ambiguous, who are " the Americans" in question? What are tense over? "lack of support from the fans"-->lack of fan support
  • "also expressed an interest"
  • "funded by 100,000 fans paying" noun + -ing structure is awkward.
  • "aluing" Is this a typo?
  • "Liverpool fans singing "You'll Never Walk Alone" were featured " Another noun + -ing sentence structure.
  • "Francis Scully trying " and again...try "Francis Scully, who tried "
  • "A team of mostly Scottish players won the match 8–0." Two rather unrelated ideas (nationality and match result) jammed together, I recommend doing away with that rather trivial information about the players' nationality and combining the sentence with the previous one.
  • "346 goals in two spells" Comparative quantities should be written out the same way.
  • Liverpool's biggest victory"—"biggest"-->largest, not sure what you mean by "biggest", are you referring to most goals scored or margin of victory?
  • "Rotherham Town, beaten 10–1 in 1896, were the victims of Liverpool's biggest league win."-->Liverpool's 10–1 defeat of Rotherham Town in 1896 was its largest league win.
  • "This margin of victory was matched in the modern era when Crystal Palace were defeated 9–0 at Anfield in 1989." What defines the "modern era"? Comma after "era".
  • "Liverpool's 8–0 victory on 6 November 2007 against Beşiktaş J.K. in the Champions League is the record win in the competition." Ambiguous again, record for what? Were both teams in the Champions League or do you mean "against Beşiktaş J.K. of the Champions League"? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not ambiguous, it is the record win in the Champions League, I've changed it a bit, and have addressed all your concerns. NapHit (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the current season Liverpool have the fifth-highest average" Comma after "season".
  • You fixed the "Liverpool is/are" inconsistencies that I highlighted above, but now those instances are inconsistent with similar phrases in the above sections:"Liverpool have a large and generally loyal fanbase" "Liverpool have played at their current ground,"Liverpool FC were founded" Fix these inconsistencies throughout the article.
  • Is there no way to add some prose for the "Reserve and Youth Team" section?
→In my view, that section was only tangentially relevant to the article, so I've taken it out and put a {{for}} template at the beginning of the subsection (thus "For honours won by Reserves and Academy, see..."). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1906, the banked stand at one end of the ground was formally renamed the Spion Kop,[34] after a hill in Natal." Comma not necessary.
  • "more players have been sent off in it"—"sent off"-->disqualified.
  • "Liverpool fans charging " Another instance of the noun + -ing sentence structure.
  • "families, survivors and supporters campaigning" Yet again...
  • "His reign saw the club win another three League Championships and two FA Cups including a League and Cup "Double" in 1985–86."-->During his reign, the club won another three League Championships and two FA Cups, including a League and Cup "Double" in 1985–86.
  • "During the past 30 years they have been one of the most successful clubs in English and European football, having won four European Cups between 1977 and 1984."-->In the past 30 years, they have been one of the most successful clubs in English and European football, having won four European Cups between 1977 and 1984.
  • "Liverpool Football Club have won a record 18 First Division titles, and seven League Cups." Comparative quantities should be written out the same way.

Please note that these are merely examples that demonstrate why a fresh copy-editor is needed to go through the text. As Graham said above, no offense to you, but when you work so hard and spend so much time on the article, you tend to miss things, making the need for an uninvolved editor necessary. I can help out a little bit in the next couple of days, but don't depend on me. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am working on "noun + -ing" and similar today. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC) - Think all have now gone. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all your comments, and Hassocks has performed a wonderful copyedit. NapHit (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just started going through my watchlist, so I will return when I can. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still inconsistencies with Liverpool is/are was/were:
    • First sentence: "Liverpool Football Club is an English professional association football club"
    • But then, just a couple sentences later: "Liverpool Football Club have"
  • "The club was founded in 1892, though it had limited success until the appointment of Bill Shankly as manager." False contrast, clubs don't necessarily experience success immediately after creation; this is implied by "though it had limited success". Change "though it"-->and.
  • "in English and European football" Is English football not considered part of European football? Colon that follows later in this sentence should be a semicolon.
  • "with flames added to the crest following the Hillsborough Disaster in honour of the 96 Liverpool fans who lost their lives."-->with flames added to the crest in honour of the 96 Liverpool fans who lost their lives in the Hillsborough Disaster.
  • "Liverpool FC have played at Anfield since their formation, but there are plans to move to a new stadium in Stanley Park, which is due to be completed by 2011." Another false contrast, "there are plans to move to a new stadium" is just additive info, change "but" to and.
  • "who hold a string of long-standing rivalries with several other clubs." "other" is implied, they can't be rivals with themselves.
  • "The most notable of these are their rivalry with Manchester United" "are"-->is, we are talking about one rivalry.
  • "due to the success of both clubs, and their proximity to each other; and with Everton" Comma note needed.

I have changed to oppose; these problems in the lead alone trouble me. Please find someone who is completely new to the article—maybe even unfamiliar with the subject—to copy-edit the article, as a major prose cleanup is needed for FA status to be attained. Sorry to be harsh, but we can't have an article be promoted with this many problems in the prose. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed these comments and am going through the article to try and cure the inconsistencies. NapHit (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I am sorry but I cannot support this FAC at this time. I have spent an hour or so working on the prose [2], but every time I re-read the article I find other problems. Some of the problems are so elementary (such as "colours is") and there are still inconsistentcies w.r.t. concessionary plurals, (club is/club are). Also, I am constantly reading "club won", and not much "club lost" and worse "manager won". This article is tantalisingly close to FA, but it's not ready yet. I take no pleasure in writing this, please don't shoot the messenger and more importantly don't give up. Graham Colm Talk 20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just gone over the article again, doubt it will sway your decision too much, but would like to know if some items have been resolved. NapHit (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know how you feel, but I have to be fair. The nomination was premature, the edits that have been made since have improved the article but more work is needed before it can be promoted. Graham Colm Talk 21:05, 4 January 2009 (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/Liverpool_F.C./archive3&oldid=1136458342"