Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Norwich City F.C.

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:34, 18 April 2008.

History of Norwich City F.C.

Self-nomination. After another excellent collaboration with The Rambling Man and following a usefully gruelling Peer Review, I present this history article for consideration. Hopefully, this is another step on the way to a Featured Topic on Norwich City F.C..

As mentioned at the PR, balancing the article in terms of recentism was difficult, as the club's historic achievements are imbalanced - I refer anyone interested to the debate at the PR, as well as the chart at the head of the article which gives some indication of this imbalance. Dweller (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ealdgyth
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the links check out with the link checker tool. Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving these last two up, since I'm not sure who BSkyB is (and a quick glance around their site didn't help much) I think they are probably reliable, but better to leave them up for others to judge for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for your interest and delectation, BSkyB are the biggest supplier of satellite television to the UK. They supply at least 2 million homes with TV channels and run sports channels Europe-wide as part of Rupert Murdoch's empire. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm a Yank. I'll hide this then, thanks for enlightening me! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on the fence about this one http://www.rsssf.com/ It looks like a hobby/self-published site but it does seem to have standards on what they publish.
    • Although past performance is no guide to the future, it's used all throughout the WP:FOOTBALL community. Its content seems as, if not more, reliable than some traditional RS's such as the BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the number one site for worldwide historical football statistics, bar none. It's considerably more reliable than say the archives of newspapers or television companies, which no-one would bat an eyelid at including. The other benefit of this type of site is that if an error is found, contact them and they will correct it. - fchd (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've persuaded me, but I'll leave it up for others to judge for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I believe. Thanks for your time reviewing. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per my peer review and subsequent improvements (and the PR has been closed correctly, thanks). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support Comments - righty-ho then, let's get stuck into it.....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is during this period that the club has achieved most of its greatest distinctions - hmmm...not wildly enthusiastic and something a tiny bit more succinct. Also distinctions to me seems a bit vague. I was musing on chopping off the last four words entirely but then not sure how that scans either WRT proper English as she is spoke.... Stuff it, I have tried to rephrase it and can't. Can't really describe all as achievements or successes so leaving as is. Not a deal-breaker..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*By April 1905, there is evidence of the use of the nickname Canaries, "This as far as we can tell is the first time that the popular pastime of the day ie ... rearing ... canaries was linked with Norwich City". By February 1907, the term "Canaries" was being used in the national press....ew, I think this bit needs a bit of a massage. Canaries is in italics in one bit and quotes in another, and there is a quotation in the middle. And the section reads choppily. I think the first long sentence can be reworded and the quotey bit eliminated. Maybe try:

"By April 1905, the team were being referred to in some circles as the Canaries, after the popular pastime of canary rearing. The term had been adopted by the national press by February 1907."

How does that sound? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately:

" The popular pastime of canary rearing had given rise to the teams' nickname of the Canaries by April 1905. This had then been adopted by the national press by February 1907."

Two passives but flows somewhat smoothlier. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'The Cits are dead but the Canaries are very much alive'. - too nice to de-quote and rewrite, instead can we get who wrote/said/reported it? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following a Football Association (F.A.) Commission, the club was informed on the last day of 1904 that they had been deemed a professional organisation.[14] The main allegations were... - just sorta jumps into it. I think a sentence or two on amateur/professional issues at the time as a mini-preamble would help explain what the issues were. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Events off the field were to overshadow the team's performances. City "were plunged into a financial crisis which threatened their very existence" -should be easy enough to rewrite without quotation marks. done myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the club's results nosedived - I think "position nosedived" but not results as such..can we reword it somehow? done too.

*Summary - looks pretty good. Some prose tweaks outlined above and I'd be happy to support. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment When I went through FAC the first and second times, I was told that all references, even websites, needed both publishers and dates for when they were published. At least add the years.--Patrick Ѻ 12:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid, an apparent misunderstanding. Copyright dates (years) aren't needed; publication dates are needed for example on news sources and others where they are specified, and this article already does that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why is the first sentence its own paragraph?--Patrick Ѻ 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. But I'll merge the first and second paras anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if that's the policy, then I have no reason to oppose this article. However, I may be confused. Here's the diff where, just last August, SandyGeorgia instructed us to have publication dates when they are available. Given the number without dates, I worry some might indeed be missing this.--Patrick Ѻ 12:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I'm concerned, wherever a date was available, it was added into the {{Cite web}} template. When it wasn't available, it wasn't added. If you can find specific examples of problems then I'd be more than happy to fix them. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved Issues from Woody
  • 'SupportOppose for now'Comment For the most part, looks good. I have a few queries though.
  • Per Wikipedia:Layout, the further reading section should be below the References.
  • Image:Norwich City Logo.gif has no fair-use rationale for any of it's uses. I don't see how it could be included here under Fair-use as well.
    • Woody, I've added fair use for the NCFC and the history article. I think the canary emblem and crest ties in so intrinsically with the history article that fair use should be okay here. As for the other article which is using it, I doubt it, but that's not relevant here. If you're happy then please strike! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The decision was endorsed at a public meeting in March 1905, a meeting that significantly was attended by Nat Whitaker, secretary of the Southern League, who seconded a motion proposed by a local businessman, that endorsed the club's " ... determination to run a first class professional team."; Whitaker actively supported Norwich, as he wanted the League's influence to spread eastwards.[15] This is a very long sentence, can we split it up please?
  • who defeated them 2–0, over the two legs Could that not be: who defeated them 2–0 over two legs.
  • Don't start a paragraph with "Soon after, Chase..."; Soon after O'Neill's resignation, Chase..." would be better.
  • A team that could hardly win a game suddenly just sounds a bit fancrufty to me. Could we back it up with facts. A team that had lost... games, suddenly won...
  • I am slightly worried about the bias of the sections. We have "First division yo-yo: 1972–1992" weighing in at two paragraphs and 20 years covered, with "New millennium and centenary: 2000–2008" weighing in at 5 paragraphs and eight years covered. I know the Premiership is covered and is a huge part of their history but I can't help feeling that some of the new stuff comes under WP:RECENT and could be trimmed slightly. The yo-yo-ing section could be expanded slightly? Woody (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked into all the refs and I chopped out a bit of redundancy in them. I replaced a couple as they didn't back up the statements. In terms of recentism: after reviewing the references and looking into it a bit more, I don't think that the sections could be expanded anymore than they already have been. Whilst I am sure that some of the more recent stuff could be trimmed, I do think that it might detract from the prose. So, I support, meets all the criteria. Woody (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reviewing my comments, and after doing some fixes on the article, I think it meets all the criteria. Support Woody (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose—Clearly not up to the 1a mark. Lots of watery patches at the top, such as:

    • "before being admitted" --> "before its admission", since right at the opening and exposed.
    Looks like someone's dealt with this. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Shortly thereafter,"—yuck. Soon after?
    <blushes> That one has Dweller all over it. Sorted. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In the course of the club's history, Norwich City has survived a number of incidents that threatened its survival, including ousting from amateur football, the need to be re-elected to The Football League and a number of financial crises." Remove the first phrase. "its ousting". "the need to be re-elected" is a bit strange in this list; can it be recast? Is a need an incident? How many financial crises (if it's possible to say—e.g., "at least three"). Comma after "League". Say who Geoffrey Watling was in a short phrase (the linked article is only one sentence); looks funny at the top as a stub-idea, and the lead is shortish anyway.
    All done, except the Oxford comma, eschewed throughout. The sense is clear without it, as no-one would misunderstand the text as re-election to financial crises. I hope my clarification works; the financial crises are clarified in the Watling sentence. That was the original intention. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove comma after 1902 and put it after Norwich. The use and non-use of commas needs an audit throughout.
    Looks like someone's dealt with this specific point. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed all the uses of Oxford commas and the article is once more consistent, with just one retained where it's necessary for clarity. I believe Casliber checked comma usage more generally. --Dweller (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • THE badge of N C.
    What's that? --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (I fixed that - pic caption) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Needs a football word-nerd to come in and sift through the entire text. Tony (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your input. I've responded to you more generally at your talk page. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all my points were addressed at Peer Review. The only query I really had at the time, was over possible recentism, but Dweller has more than justified the balance of the article. It's thorough in the history of Norwich City with appropriate images. Good work. Peanut4 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - accessible enough even to "barbarians who know nothing of the beautiful game" without spoon-feeding the aficionados. Seems comprehensive without giving a blow-by-blow account of every match of every season. Swap the lead image though, for pity's sake. Yomanganitalk 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are surely my favourite barbarian. Thanks for your c-e (and your support). Happy for the lead image to be swapped with the badge, but I'm out of time and off back to wikibreak. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched. Hope it removes that last iota of doubt! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 17 April 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_Norwich_City_F.C.&oldid=1138462875"