Wikipedia:Featured article review/Central Coast Mariners FC/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Notifying: User talk:Daniel, WikiProject Football/Australia task force, WikiProject Football, WikiProject New South Wales, Australian Wikipedians' notice board

I am nominating this featured article for review because this is a 2007 FA that is not up to current standards. I posted a list of concerns on the talk page nearly a year ago, after the article was put forward for TFA consideration, but some of the problems remain unaddressed. Issues that I can see (there may be others):

Lead - "The club's training grounds are located at the Mariners Centre of Excellence in Tuggerah, a facility which when completed will also become the permanent headquarters for the club." This is only in the lead, not in the main body, and is sourced to a 2011 source - has nothing happened since?
- I don't see this in the lead right now, so it must have been removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrie McKinna era - the last five paragraphs of this sub-section have one reference between them, and peacock/POV phrases such as "the many fine Youth Academy players", "following a remarkable final round", "match ended in controversy", "this was controversially referred to as a strike", "The 2008–09 season was disappointing compared to the standards set in the previous season". I've just removed the unsourced BLP problem "This is the first time [redacted] had played professional football since 2003, due to drug problems" from this section as well.
- Good call on the BLP issue, and a couple of the items above have been fixed. There's still more to do, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added a bunch of print references to this section. Further copy-editing is still needed, but this is looking better than when the FAR started. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Arnold era - further unsourced material, and use of "however" (which is a word setting off alarm bells about the quality of the prose)
- The alarming word is still there until I go through the article more carefully, but the citation level here is much better after I added some more print sources. I also added some more content to update the article to reflect the most recent season, which ended in April. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The word should now be gone, and the article as a whole should be a bit cleaner than it was before. The linking in particular needed a large amount of work. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colours and badge - we have material such as "Mariners enjoyed considerable success in the 2005–06 away strip" sourced to a no-longer-existing page on the club's own website - even if the club thinks the success was considerable, better sourcing is required for POV claims like that.
- The offending material is now gone. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rivalries - sourced only to footballderbies.com - what makes this a reliable, let alone a high-quality, source, when it says that "This website has been produced by and for football fans all over the world"?
- This has now been re-written with print sources. It was hard for me since I'm unfamiliar with how to write about soccer (football to you) rivalries, but it's at least reliably sourced and better than what was there before. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Affiliated clubs: unsourced
- The ones without a source are now gone. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Current squad: unsourced
- Fully sourced and up to date now. Link to sources will be stable. Daniel (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Captains: unsourced
- Removed, should be covered in history section. Daniel (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Club officials - the managers section is unsourced, and the source given for the management does not mention the patron, given as the first on the list, making me worried that other material in the article may not be backed up by the sources.
- It looks like sources have been added to this section. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Records - "the club's most prestigious award" is POV. The top scorers chart is 18 months out of date and unsourced.
- Done Cleaned-up the records and honours sections, added refs and links. I also removed some POV content and the records table which is duplicated form List of Central Coast Mariners FC records and statistics.--2nyte (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All time matches win/loss - uncited.
- Done Split to records article, was too detailed for main article. Daniel (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of work is needed to bring this up to modern FA standards. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to help get this article back to Featured article standards.--2nyte (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 2nyte. It's definitely fallen by the wayside since I nominated it five years ago. Needs a huge refresh and an update. Daniel (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've looked at the article and agree with Bencherlite and the others that it doesn't meet the FA criteria at this time. The good news is that some work has been done on it already, and I have contributed a few references and some rewriting myself. Unfortunately, I am an American and have only spotty access to Australian sources. Daniel and 2nyte, if you are willing to help with building up the sourcing, I can give the writing a polish. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thanks to Giants2008 and everyone else for pitching in and helping out. Nikkimaria was kind enough to allow us an extension beyond the two weeks noted in the FAR instructions, so hopefully we can keep chipping away at it over the next couple of weeks. Thanks again, Daniel (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note in response to say that I'm glad to see that people are working on this (although I've not checked what's actually been done yet). Let me know when you want me to take a fresh look. I'm not an expert on football articles, but perhaps people who are (like Dweller and The Rambling Man, for instance) might also be worth asking in due course for their input. (Hi guys!) Bencherlite^Talk 19:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can offer more comments any time you'd like, and I'll certainly listen to them. We're getting to the point where further input would be helpful. Daniel said he was going to format the references, so the few bare links and the like that are left should be fixed soon. Other than that, and some necessary dead link repairs, I think keeping the article at FA is certainly possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The last of the formatting of the references I have just finished. I feel as if all the concerns have been addressed. I'd like the FAR co-ordinators to have a look and make their determination (hopefully in the affirmative, obviously). Daniel (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, this has gone rather stale and, since the last of the concerns were addressed and the last part of the writeup completed, there hasn't been any edits to the article or this FARC. Can it be closed now by chance, or are there any standing issues with the article? Daniel (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, sorry for not replying to the various pings / messages earlier. I think that the lead/article could do with a few "As of [month/year[" or "As of [year]" to make it clear how up-to-date some records etc are, but apart from that small point this looks to be in much better shape than it was when the review started and I'm happy for Nikkimaria or another FAR coordinator to close this review now. Well done Daniel, Giants2008 and anyone else who helped out. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few of those as of indicators just now. Allow me to added a (biased) keep and say that I think this is good enough to retain its FA status now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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