Wikipedia:Featured article review/Everton F.C./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.

The article was kept 10:33, 6 February 2008.

Everton F.C.

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject England, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and User:SenorKristobbal

I don't think this article meets FA criteria 1c. Large sections have little or no refs.

Examples:

Colours section, no refs
Crest section, no refs
First six paragraphs of History section have a total of 2 refs.

Buc 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Yeah, fair enough I reckon. So, I've now fixed the history section, referenced all paragraphs, it turned out that the majority of the text was sourced from the Everton F.C. history pages so it was easily remedied. I'll see what I can do about the rest of Buc's issues. -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of Buc's concerns above now dealt with. -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about the quality of the writing. There are several stubby paragraphs. The Academy section is just a link to another article. Is that an improperly formatted see also or a summary style split without leaving a summary? -- Jay32183 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm sure the quality of writing could be improved so we'll work on that. Not sure what your last sentence means - there is no "See also" section. Please expand so we can help! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm wondering if it is supposed to be a see also section but isn't? More likely it should have a summary of the other article, but none was written. I can't really tell what the intention was though. Either a summary should be written or it should be moved to a see also section towards the bottom, in proper manual of style order. Jay32183 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep this was going to be my next piont after the large ref holes had been addressed. The wording in a lot of places is sloppy and the sub sections after "Honours". A see also section does sound like a good idea, I hadn't thought of that. Buc (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember a See also section being a requisite for FA. Seems like we're not really focussing on the main issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, but in this case it might be useful. Buc (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not as useful as improving the prose?! And exactly how would it be useful in this particular case? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the sub sections at the bottem, just a suggestion. Buc (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is listing a set of items at the bottom, better than having sections in the text. I agree it could be restructured, preferably with a players section with subheadings underneath. That would seem better to me. Perhaps give a brief summary of the academy. e.g.:

==Players==
===Current squad===
===Academy===
===Notable players===
;Etc
;Etc

The ";" is used to prevent the TOC being swamped. I think putting it in a see also section is inadvisable. I use the see also section as an area where i place links that should be worked into the text. Really there is little need for them in a Featured article. Woodym555 (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that a see also should be the only section that is just a link to another article. If you want an Academy section, there should be at least a paragraph about the academy. Jay32183 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There could be an issue with the use of Image:Everton crest.PNG. The uploader states it was made from "old uncopyrighted logos", however I doubt they are in the public domain unless all were used prior to 1923. If they are still copyrighted then a fair use rationale is required. Dave101→talk 13:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like neither non-free image has a fair use rationale. Jay32183 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), prose (1a), and images (3).

Improvement here. Moving down to see how people feel. Marskell (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unclear what the European Record section adds to the article - also, it seems like a bad precedent (someone's already tried to add a similar thing to the Liverpool article). Robotforaday (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Prose still an issue. Buc (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still some refs need sorting, albeit one that is generally perceived as more respectful than in particular needs referencing. The Image:Everton crest.PNG still needs individual sources or it should be removed/deleted. What exactly is the point about including the Stallone bit, hardly important in relative terms. Still needs some work, but generally the prose is good, a few bits to go though. Woody (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely H2G2 can't be considered a reliable source??? I think that particular reference (in the Nickname section) should be replaced. --Jameboy (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I easily spotted (and fixed) a textual redundancy; can anything be done about the three one- and two-sentence sections? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub sections are gone. Refs have inconsistent date formatting and I'm sure some of them have more info that could be unpacked. On the whole though, this is close. Anyone still around? Marskell (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can help. Shoot me some specifics. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs should now be formatted consistently.--Peter Andersen (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead was expanded a touch, the crest image removed, and some prose improved. Thank you, Peter, for the tedious work of ref formatting. Marskell (talk) 10:31, 6 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.