Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sheffield Wednesday F.C./archive1

Sheffield Wednesday F.C.

Self-nom. Has been improved immensly by several editors during the past few months and has recently been through a peer review. josh (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object: The following corrections: Support: It would be better if you guys put the images in more appropriate places but, nevertheless, it's certainly a good article that deserves it's FA Status

What is wrong with where the images are now? What do you suggest? -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 07:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Sheffieldwed.gif - Source and Fair use rationale?

I'm not sure where this image is from, I'm not even 100% sure that it is geniune, so unless anyone else can come up with a source for it I would be happy to see it removed from the page and deleted! -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this. I couldn't locate it anywhere on the web. Also the caption was incorrect as the modern version of the owl was adopted in 1970. josh (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The crest has now been replaced with the actual crest used prior to 1970 along with two other crests used since then. The section has also been expanded to reflect this. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Leaflet advert for blackburn rovers match-1887.jpg - Fair use rationale?

Image info was vandalised, it's PD 216.189.165.232 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Image:SheffieldWednesdayEmblem.PNG - Image Source? --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 20:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Image source and copyright information now added. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Further reading goes after references.--Yannismarou 07:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Now corrected -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now: All objections resolved, change to Support Oldelpaso 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Steel City Derby and the rivalry with Sheffield United are mentioned in the lead but not anywhere else in the article..

Rivalry section has now been added. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are a few things which need copyediting, e.g. After a difficult search the club finally bought some land in the village of Owlerton, which at the time was several miles outside the city boundaries and the club was secured for the next century. is a run-on sentence. Later in the article there are several spelling errors, and there's quite a bit of awkward phrasing in the Records section.

Done -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is not clear what the first paragraph of the Fanzines and support (perhaps change to Support and fanzines?) section is trying to convey. The phrase Sheffield Wednesday have had a relatively large number of fanzines over the years which supplement, oppose and complement the club's official magazine and match day programme tells the reader little, and is an example of peacock terms. Oldelpaso 11:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This section has now been changed to Support with fanzines as a subsection. The offending phrase has been changed. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Decent images are what win me over on this article, and the prose is very good. Kingfisherswift 12:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support The article is well written and contains extensive information regarding many aspects of the club. It is informative, easy to read and also contains some good images. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support The article is well written and I like the images Kingjamie 16:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object. A good article, but some issues need resolving. There's plenty but all of them should be quick to fix.

All my objections have been satisfactorily dealt with, so I change my vote to whole-hearted Support. Qwghlm 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• • A few assertive claims need citation - these have been flagged as such in the text.
    • These have been fixed by josh (talk) -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A photograph of Hillsborough would be much better than a map.
    • There is no free image of Hillsborough on Wikipedia that could be used. I created the map and it can be used on any Wikipedia page. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It may be worth looking through Flickr for photographs - any with a Creative Commons CC-by-sa licence could be used here; if not, then perhaps you could even get in touch wih the photographer and ask them to licence it under CC/GFDL. Qwghlm 11:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Done. josh (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I have doubts over the licensing of the photo used, see Image talk:Hillsborough Stadium.jpg. Qwghlm 16:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I have replaced the photo with an image that has a Creative Commons CC-by-sa-2.0 licence -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Smashing. That's fine. Qwghlm 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The picture of the "1970s" crest at the top would be better moved to the section about the crest. Also, the caption contradicts the statement that the current minimalist crest was adopted in 1970.
    • I see this has been removed. However, it would be nice to have a picture of the pre-1970 logo in the crest section; I think that would be fine to use under fair use.
      • The crest has been removed as we think that it may not be genuine! -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I have now added three genuine past crests and expanded the section. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The league graph is a nice idea but the colours for the divisions don't look very nice. Maybe use shades of blue instead, to tie in with the club colours? You could have the top flight white and the bottom flight blue, with shades in between.
    • Done. josh (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The intro mentions the Hillsborough disaster, though this is not elaborated on in the main text, which could give the reader the wrong impression, since Wednesday were not directly involved in the match in question. Could be interesting information - e.g. to what degree the design of the stadium and SWFC were to blame for the disaster.
    • I have added a fairly extensive section on the disaster. It could probably do with a bit of copy editing by someone else. What do you think of it? Is it too long? -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It's a little longer than I expected, but I will make some copyedits tonight. Qwghlm 16:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Done that now. Qwghlm 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Cheers, I got a bit carried away when I was writing it! -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What criteria are used for the list of former players? Either find an objective one (e.g. Everton F.C. has an official set of club legends) or leave out all together and just link to the main list of players (e.g. as Arsenal F.C. does).
    • I see this has been removed, objection withdrawn. Qwghlm 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor contradiction - was it 40,000 or 41,000 fans that travelled to Cardiff for the playoff final.
    • This has been fixed by josh (talk) -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wednesdayite is linked to in the navbox at the bottom but strangely not mentioned in the fans/support section.
    • Done. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The following two sentences are mutually contradictory: "A quartered blue and white design was used in 1887 and a blue shirt with white sleeves between 1969 and 1973. This dates back to 1965..."
    • Corrected -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Some dates would be nice for additional context for important events in the club's history such as the following: FA Cup win in the 1930s, first games at Olive Grove and Hillsborough.
    • Done -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Are the away colours traditionally yellow or are they changed regularly?
    • Done -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Some sentences are a bit abrupt and leave the reader wondering more. Examples:
    • "Everton managed to claw back a 2-0 deficit after 54 minutes." - presumably Everton went on to win 3-2, but this is not clear.
      • Fixed -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "The Blades, a common name for Sheffield clubs during the 19th century..." - why? Presumably it has something to do with the steel industry?
      • This has been fixed by josh (talk) -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "It [the crest] now features the year of establishment below the owl." - was this always the case or an addition made in the years since the crest was adopted?
      • Fixed -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "...and continued the trend when returning to the Championship." - what does this mean - does it mean they have the highest attendances in the Championship as well? Rewording & citation needed.
      • Additional wording and citation added -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "Known to many as 'Tango'" - (a) I've heard him being referred to as Tangoman and (b) This nickname really needs explaining - I think it was to do with the Tango adverts in the 1990s but I'm not totall sure.
      • This has been fixed by josh (talk) -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "Another famous Wednesday institution was the Wednesday Band" - why were they famous, and when were they around?
      • This has been fixed by josh (talk) -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced a playoff victory counts an official honour, but I might be wrong - need to check how the FA/Football League classify them. Qwghlm 16:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • On reflection, this isn't actually a major worry - objection withdrawn Qwghlm 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What's the rationale for the inclusion of the players listed under Notable Players? Looking at the list, they all seem like "Wednesday legends" but there's no actual specific reason why that ten or so have been chosen and not any other notable players. Personally I'd prefer it if you just had the link to list of players under that heading. HornetMike 19:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn this section. josh (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written article with good images and links to more indepth pages on the various sections Basement12 03:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - like the Everton one Cas Liber 05:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)