Wikipedia:Featured article review/Manchester City F.C./archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 18:36, 20 June 2007.
- Oldelpaso, The Rambling Man, SteveO, Mattythewhite and WikiProject Football notified
With the current issues over the clubs ownership this aricle has started to become a little unstable. I'm a little worried that the overall standered has been dropping. Buc 16:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Buc, please notify relevant parties (original FAC nominator, top editors, and relevant WikiProjects) per the instructions at WP:FAR with {{subst:FARMessage|Manchester City F.C.}}, and list the notifications at the top of the FAR as in other examples on this page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please present examples of where you observe either a stability issue or a degradation, by it in prose, content, referencing, etc, in this article or this FAR will be closed. Joelito (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly the Ownership and History sections. Buc 18:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposed takeover is not mentioned in the History section, and there is a single paragraph about it in the ownership section (which does indeed need sorting out, I'll take a look). As with more or less any article which reached FA more than a year ago there's probably some areas which could do with touching up, but that strikes me as something which could be done on the talk page (where these issues have not been raised thus far) before bringing it to FAR. Oldelpaso 10:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it seems fine. It's two mere sentences, well sourced, with no track of bias. Anyway, as Oldelpaso suggested, this issue might be easily discussed in the article's talk page. --Angelo 17:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone who watches the article (but hasn't made any substantial contributions), it doesn't seem particularly unstable. Currently, its 50th most recent edit dates back to 8th June, and many of those in between are just vandalism anyway. SteveO 21:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it seems fine. It's two mere sentences, well sourced, with no track of bias. Anyway, as Oldelpaso suggested, this issue might be easily discussed in the article's talk page. --Angelo 17:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.