Wikipedia:Featured article review/Premier League/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 21:56, 19 December 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, User:Pal, User:Mark272 and User:Oldelpaso.
This article has a few problems:
- The lead section says "The FA Women's Premier League, more specifically the National Division, is the Premiership's female counterpart, as most of its clubs are affiliated with Premiership and Football League sides; however, the league is semi-professional and has a much lower profile than the men's game." and "The 2007–08 Season sees the Premier League introduce a new theme song, logo, typeface for player names and numbers, and patches.", but the rest of the article does not say anything about it.
- Many sections have no references. For example, "Origins", "Competition", "Transfer records" and "Former Premier League members".
- There are some English mistakes in the article. For example: "the top 22 teams broke off the First Division and formed a new league: The FA Premier League", "In 2007, the premier league negotiated" and "emailed a warning to 101greatgoals.blogspot.com, an independent website that links to youtube videos, that forced its temporary closure"
- The "Premier League problems" section is POV and unneccesary.
- Some references, for example 2, 17 and 45 (and the one after "which has an average per-team annual revenue of over US$190 million") have formatting problems.
--Kaypoh 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify relevant WikiProjects and involved editors, including the original nominator. You can review other FARs on this page for samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Did I do it correctly? --Kaypoh 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Thanks. DrKiernan 15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eventually! Whilst I would say that most of the problems come under the bracket WP:SOFIXIT, I will do all that I can to keep it featured. I do think it would have been courteous to let the projects know a bit quicker. The two week gap is unacceptable. Woodym555 15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We can always extend the review period. DrKiernan 15:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok we will see how it goes. The problems don't seem to be major. Nothing a quick copyedit and a reference check won't solve. Woodym555 15:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We can always extend the review period. DrKiernan 15:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Did I do it correctly? --Kaypoh 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As this is an article which attracts a lot of drive-by edits, a spring-clean would be beneficial. I'll take a look over the weekend and see what I can do. Oldelpaso 18:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like some vandalism slipped through and decimated the history section at some point. I've restored some material from the promoted version. -- Oldelpaso (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead (2a), citations (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove The article is better now and can pass GA,
but many paragraphs still have no references and some references have formatting problems. References must always go after a comma or full stop. I think the "Managers" section should not be there or should be in the "Players" section."History" section only talks about how the Premier League was formed and needs more info about what happened in the 15 seasons. "Women's Premier League" section should be expanded. I am not sure if the POV problems with the Criticism section are all fixed. Finally, the article needs a copy-edit, especially the new paragraphs/sections. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC) (amended —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaypoh (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 December 2007)[reply]
- Are there any specific paragraphs for which referencing is a concern i.e. containing material likely to be challenged? Footnote counting for its own sake is not particularly useful, and I wouldn't regard the current level of referencing as skimpy.
- There really isn't that much more to put in a summary style section about the Women's Premier League; it is a part-time league which receives very little media attention. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't think that this should turn into a summary of all the Premier League seasons. I think the current content is adequate and well balanced. We have Template:Premier League seasons for that. The current history section sums up the creation of the League and the processes leading to its creation and that is what this article should be about, (in my opinion of course). Woody (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to give a summary of every season. For that, a table that shows which team won each season is enough. But you need to mention major changes in the Premier League rules and the way it is run. For example, it mentions that the number of clubs was changed from 22 to 20 and the name was changed this year. Anything else? There must be info about major events in the clubs. For example, Man U did not win a title for 26 years until the first season of the EPL, during the 1995-96 season Newcastle were ahead of Man U by 12 points but Man U end up winning the title, when Arsene Wenger joined Arsenal in 1996-97 they became a club that challenged for the title, from being a top-four club Leeds went bankrupt and were relegated and in 2003-4 Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea and they won two titles for the first time in 50 years. You have 4 paragraphs about 1-2 years and 1 paragraph about 15 years. That is not balanced. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all that you have mentioned is trivia about the clubs. It belongs in their club pages and not an article about the League. It is not an article about the clubs in the league, it is an article about the League itself. A key part of that League is its formation from the old League system, therefore it receives a lot of "article space". It is not undue weight. Woody (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let the FA director (or the person who closes FARs) decide what is actionable and what is not. The first paragraph of "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" section is unreferenced and so it is also POV. The last paragraph of "Worldwide" section is only one sentence, not well written and unreferenced. Two paragraphs in "Top scorers" have statistics but are unreferenced. I don't think the information is trivia about the clubs because it is about how well they did in the Premier League. If one club win the Premier League for 5 seasons then another club win the Premier League for the next 3 seasons then you want to report the change in the "best teams". If a club changed manager, that info is trivia, unless the new manager made the club win the league. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed all your referencing concerns. Thanks for pointing them out. There are three people who could close this, Marskell, Joel, and Raul.
- In terms of your content qualms, frankly I disagree with them. Managers don't win Leagues, and this is not a season summary for the Premier League. It lists all the neccessary statistics to have a good understanding of the league. It is now complete, factually accurate, referenced, and meets all the FA criteria. Woody (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let the FA director (or the person who closes FARs) decide what is actionable and what is not. The first paragraph of "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" section is unreferenced and so it is also POV. The last paragraph of "Worldwide" section is only one sentence, not well written and unreferenced. Two paragraphs in "Top scorers" have statistics but are unreferenced. I don't think the information is trivia about the clubs because it is about how well they did in the Premier League. If one club win the Premier League for 5 seasons then another club win the Premier League for the next 3 seasons then you want to report the change in the "best teams". If a club changed manager, that info is trivia, unless the new manager made the club win the league. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all that you have mentioned is trivia about the clubs. It belongs in their club pages and not an article about the League. It is not an article about the clubs in the league, it is an article about the League itself. A key part of that League is its formation from the old League system, therefore it receives a lot of "article space". It is not undue weight. Woody (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to give a summary of every season. For that, a table that shows which team won each season is enough. But you need to mention major changes in the Premier League rules and the way it is run. For example, it mentions that the number of clubs was changed from 22 to 20 and the name was changed this year. Anything else? There must be info about major events in the clubs. For example, Man U did not win a title for 26 years until the first season of the EPL, during the 1995-96 season Newcastle were ahead of Man U by 12 points but Man U end up winning the title, when Arsene Wenger joined Arsenal in 1996-97 they became a club that challenged for the title, from being a top-four club Leeds went bankrupt and were relegated and in 2003-4 Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea and they won two titles for the first time in 50 years. You have 4 paragraphs about 1-2 years and 1 paragraph about 15 years. That is not balanced. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't think that this should turn into a summary of all the Premier League seasons. I think the current content is adequate and well balanced. We have Template:Premier League seasons for that. The current history section sums up the creation of the League and the processes leading to its creation and that is what this article should be about, (in my opinion of course). Woody (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could the review period be extended? As I was not informed of this FAR until last week I am only partway through addressing the concerns. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also ask for an extension, the status of the notifications means that some more work needs to be done. Thanks. Woodym555 (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaypoh (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since Nov. 26. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaypoh (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since Nov. 26. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also ask for an extension, the status of the notifications means that some more work needs to be done. Thanks. Woodym555 (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note As long as you are commited to addressing the concerns provided above this FARC will not be closed. The FARC, however, will be closed if no progress is made and no status is provided. Joelito (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, thanks. I am planning on rather large scale revisions tommorrow. Woodym555 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead and first half of the article should be better now. Tackling what used to be the "Premier League problems" section is in progress. More to follow. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE, I think the whole article has now been reviewed, copyedited, and referenced where appropriate (I think). All initial problems have been fixed. Any further issues would be helpful. Thanks. Woodym555 22:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you all put the External links last per WP:GTL? Also, wondering if some of the Seealso is already in or can be incorporated into the article; ideally, See also should be minimized (see WP:GTL). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- External links moved and see also section nuked. Woody (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still incorrectly formatted citations (they all need publishers, author and publication date when available, see WP:CITE/ES), I found quite a few minor MOS glitches when running through, but more importantly, there is still a lot of uncited hard data. I did some of them, but there are still many endash fixes needed on date ranges. Nice progress, but keep going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like you picked an unfortunate time, the hyphens and a few paragraphs of uncited material were added shortly before you looked. I've removed some parts of it outright, and am considering the best way forward with the other bits. I'll look into the citation formatting now. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead links need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I have also done a WP:DASH sweep and fixed up the references where I can. Woody (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is looking like a keep. I would suggest one change if you think it helpful: I would change the footnotes ^ a b c d e f g Played in every Premier League season and ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Founding member of Premier League. They aren't references/sources per se, but by using the ref tags, they end up in the References list. You might consider changing them to superscripted notes a and b, and putting them into a line at the bottom of the actual table rather than in the sources. There's a sample at Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome#Multiple sets of diagnostic criteria. Nice work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Implemented that. I agree with the reasoning. It was annoying me when I did the ref sweep, but couldn't see a way around it. Thanks for the suggestion! Woody (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is looking like a keep. I would suggest one change if you think it helpful: I would change the footnotes ^ a b c d e f g Played in every Premier League season and ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Founding member of Premier League. They aren't references/sources per se, but by using the ref tags, they end up in the References list. You might consider changing them to superscripted notes a and b, and putting them into a line at the bottom of the actual table rather than in the sources. There's a sample at Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome#Multiple sets of diagnostic criteria. Nice work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good; unless anyone knowledgeable on the topic has content issues, I'm a keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read my "Remove" comment above. There are still content issues. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I have also done a WP:DASH sweep and fixed up the references where I can. Woody (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...with member club revenues totalling in excess of £1.4 billion." The source doesn't actually give this figure. It's repeated again in the body and should also be sourced there. (I presume it's cumulative member club revenues.)
I'm going to go over the prose myself. Lots of duplicate blue links off the top and some wordiness. Otherwise, it's keepable. The Women's League does not need greater description, as it has its own article. "...more info about what happened in the 15 seasons." Possibly, but it's not sufficient to remove status. I'd suggest coming up with a couple of sentences on article talk. Marskell (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've taken care of my first point. Marskell (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found the £1.4bn ref and put it in. I suspect that the number was updated when the latest figures were released but the ref was not. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the work you have put in Marskell, I saw it through my watchlist. I have attempted to trim down the links, some clubs had been linked on every instance. I tried to be reasonable, ie, if linked within the last three main headings (==XYZ==), then I would delink them. I also removed a sentence of speculation which I caught on my run through. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is almost FA now, but I think everyone needs to agree whether it needs more info about what happened during the 15 seasons. I think it also needs a copy-edit (because the new paragraphs must be well written) and POV check (I pointed out a POV paragraph about the TV rights, and the Criticism section, maybe there are more problems). After all of this, I will vote Keep. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As Marskell says, suggest a couple of sentences on the talk yourself. I don't see the need, for me, the wikilinks cover it all as does the prose on this page. Also, it wasn't POV, it was uncited, there is a difference. It can still be POV even if it is cited, it is just a particular stance. You pointed out problems very early on, they were fixed. Since it has had a rewrite, have you seen any problems with it? I accept that it is/was wordy in places, but Marskell has seen to a lot of that. (Thanks again). Woody (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is almost FA now, but I think everyone needs to agree whether it needs more info about what happened during the 15 seasons. I think it also needs a copy-edit (because the new paragraphs must be well written) and POV check (I pointed out a POV paragraph about the TV rights, and the Criticism section, maybe there are more problems). After all of this, I will vote Keep. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the work you have put in Marskell, I saw it through my watchlist. I have attempted to trim down the links, some clubs had been linked on every instance. I tried to be reasonable, ie, if linked within the last three main headings (==XYZ==), then I would delink them. I also removed a sentence of speculation which I caught on my run through. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found the £1.4bn ref and put it in. I suspect that the number was updated when the latest figures were released but the ref was not. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:06, 18 December 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.