Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959)/archive1

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 by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 [1].

---

History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959)

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the formation of Liverpool F.C. up until the appointment of Bill Shankly as manager. The article is currently a GA and I believe it is close to attaining featured standard. Thanks in advance for your comments, cheers NapHit (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comments - taking a look now. Will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot notes below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Despite the scoreline, only 200 spectators attended the match, but as the season went on and as Liverpool continued to win their attendances increased. - I'd remove the "Despite the scoreline," as it doesn't make sense as a contrastive (the attendees wouldn't have known the score beforehand..)

Done NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Approximately 2,000 people watched Liverpool defeat South Shore in their penultimate match at Anfield - huh? Liverpool still play at Anfield now...?

change to penultimate match of the season NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

with a realistic chance of winning their first League championship. - "realistic" is redundant here. With one game to play any chance is a chance....

done

More success did not follow as Liverpool were unable to repeat the feat; - I'd remove "More success did not follow" - let the facts speak for themselves.

done

McQueen was initially successful, as Liverpool retained the championship, this owed much to the form of their goalkeeper Elisha Scott, who only conceded 31 goals during the season, a league record at the time - long sentence. I'd split after "championship"

done

A significant development occurred at Anfield in 1920, as the Kop was redesigned - I'd remove "A significant development occurred at Anfield" and let facts speak for themselves

done

This paragraph has alot of "spectators" in it, might be good to remove one...

done

Are there any other key players during this period to mention?

I've tried to include a bit more now NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the extra material was exactly what I was looking for, to give it some atmosphere and help the reader feel it more. Looking more now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Did they play in all-red during this period?

Nope, the all red kits were not introduced until 1965 NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is only 16 kb long in prose size, so any key events with interesting anecdotes could be expanded a little. Otherwise is a little "this happened, then this happened, then this happened etc."

I've had a go at this and added a bit more NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom Watson left as manager in 1915 - says on his talk page that he actually died (?) - so he likely got sick there (?)

Yep expanded on this NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Any idea why Ashworth left to manage Oldham?

Yep, added a bit about that now. NapHit (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Overall, fairly engaging. I think I'll need to read it again. I do think this is within striking distance of FA-hood...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Casliber, I appreciate the comments and the kind words. Hopefully, it's not too far off! NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think I tentatively support on comprehensiveness and prose, but don't know much about Liverpool so this is sort of pending on other folks' views as well. good luck..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comments–I'll gladly read this article. I haven't seen many sport articles on FAC these days.

A comma is needed after "his 56th birthday".

Scott joined Belfast Celtic after 24 years at the Club–I think club shouldn't be capitalized.

Is it grammatically correct to write "in front of 34,140 crowd (or attendance)" instead of " in front of a crowd of 34,140"?

I think you can drop who from Liddell's image without losing the meaning of the decription.

I support the prose, I've rarely seen an article with neat writing as this one. My notes are easily fixable, and I believe this article deserves the FA barnstar.--Retrohead (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and the support Retrohead, much appreciated. Regarding the attendance comment, I'm not 100% sure about this, so I'll leave it and see if anyone else picks up on it. All your other comments have been addressed, thanks again. NapHit (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Consider it done. I wasn't sure either, and must admit, it sounds like an American English feature.--Retrohead (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comments by User:Dweller I'm looking it through and comments will appear here: --14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

1. I notice the history of the club is broken into three periods. This article covers 67 years. The other two cover 26 and 31 respectively. Does that seem like POV recentism? --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. The only reason I did it like this was to separate the articles at significant points in the club's history. 59 for the appointment of Shankly and 89 for Hillsborough. I guess they are arbitrary in a sense, could potentially be seen as recentism I suppose. NapHit (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Lead mentions "club president" Houlding. Unclear which club is intended (presumably Everton) but in any case this position is not mentioned (and therefore not cited) in the body text. --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
2. "moving to Goodison Park from Anfield" - last two words are a redundancy.
3. "Thus, he founded Liverpool to play there The first match was against Rotherham Town in the Lancashire League." Choppy and missing a full stop
4. The lead jumps straight from winning promotion to the League to winning the League itself. Did they not need to get promoted? That progress must be worth a mention - it's not like the Lead is excessively long, currently.
5. "More success followed in the 1920s; ... Despite this success, the Inter-war years were unsuccessful for Liverpool" Hmmm. Repeated language, a rogue capital I and an apparent explicit contradiction in terms. Try deleting "more success followed in the 1920" and changing the rest to "Despite this success, during the inter-war years, the club often finished mid-table" --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
6. "a dispute between Everton and Houlding". Everton are an inanimate organisation. Do you mean the directors?
7. "Houlding was left with an empty ground" Eh? Surely John Orrell was.

This is a bit confusing. The history pages on the club's official website state Houlding bought the land off Orrell, yet some of my books state he rented. I suppose it would be best to go with the club's version? NapHit (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Fairly sure "rebuked" should be "rebuffed"
2. "the League refused to admit the club" why? Because of the dispute?
3. "its first match ... thus they" You need to decide whether Liverpool is a singular noun or plural. Either works for BrEng, but you must be consistent. So "their first match ... thus they" or "its first match ... thus it" and then apply it to the rest of the article
4. "Incidentally" Yuck. Very colloquial. The sentence works far better without the word anyway.
5. "the resignation of Accrington Stanley and Bootle" two clubs, so surely "resignations"?
6. "the city's colour of red" I have no idea what this means
7. What colour were their original shorts and what did it change to?
8. I can't believe the forebearance in not pointing out that Newton Heath, who were relegated and then replaced by Liverpool are Manchester United! It's a historically interesting moment.
9. "regular attendances of 20,000 spectators" That's quite freaky. I presume there's an "approximately" missing.

More later --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at addressing these comments @Dweller:, think I've responded or got most of them. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Shudde ^talk. Thought I better do a review now that I've nominated an article myself. This one piqued my interest. Probably won't get the review done in one sitting, but here goes:

• This escalated into a dispute between Houlding and the Everton board over how the club was run -- this is a bit vague, can more detail be included about that this exactly entailed? Did the board decide to relocate the club? How did Houlding end up with Anfield? Had he purchased it, or was the lease in his name?
• You should check for duplicate wiki-links. There are a couple in there (including Anfield linked twice in the opening paragraph).
• The League, unimpressed with their hubristic application, refused to admit the club and they were forced to join the Lancashire League. -- "their hubristic" could be interpreted as the League rather than the club, maybe change to "the hubristic application"
• They had arrived following manager John McKenna's trip to Scotland to recruit players for the club. -- It seems this sentence could be improved (and made a little more precise?). How about "Manager John McKenna had recruited the players while on [or after?] a scouting trip to Scotland."
• won the Lancashire League on goal average from Blackpool. -- Is it "from Blackpool" or "over Blackpool"?
• The trophies that Liverpool were awarded were stolen and the club had to pay £130 to replace them. -- Again wonder if the prose could be tighter, how about "However Liverpool had to pay £130 to replace the trophies after they were stolen."
• You mention the fact the club won more and more matches and their attendance increased, but how many Lancashire League games did they actually play?
• You've linked both Football League Second Division and Football League Second Division on their second mention rather than first.
  • See the lead. -- Shudde ^talk 05:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• The club's first match in the Football League -- it would be really good to specify the date here (considering how historic it is).
• Should it read "which they won 2–0, with Malcolm McVean scoring Liverpool's first goal in league football" ?
• There is a redirect to Playoffs#Association football that may as well be corrected.
• who would later be known as Manchester United -- "who were later renamed Manchester United" ?
• You've used "Test Match" and then later "test match" -- which one is it?

I'm done for now. I'll come and finish this off later. -- Shudde ^talk 05:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC) More:

• 12 wins in their final 14 matches resulted in a first place finish. -- this is a violation of MOS:NUMERAL and should be reworded.
• You've linked to the article 1896–97 in English football (which I think is a good idea), but when discussing earlier seasons not linked to the relevant article. Maybe correct this.
• Maybe link to Merseyside in it's first mention.
• Some editors really don't like the construction "would continue" in cases such as league championship would continue as Villa. Maybe just replace with "continued" ?
• Maybe replace The club also reached the semi-finals of the FA Cup during the season, where they faced Sheffield United. with "The club again reached the FA semi-finals, where they faced Sheffield United."
• The tie resulted in four matches being played before either side won. -- I know what you're trying to say here, but I think this should be clarified because not all readers are going to be familiar enough with the FA Cup and British English to make sense of this.
  • I still think this may be confusing to some readers, but I have to think about how best to word this. -- Shudde ^talk 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Liverpool's wait for their first championship is this their first championship, or do the lower league titles not count?
  • This is how winning the top division is referred to in the UK, simply as winning the championship. So I can understand the confusion, I can try and re word it so its clearer?
    • Yes I think it's worth rewording to avoid any possible ambiguity. -- Shudde ^talk 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe appropriate links to Association football positions where necessary
• like the previous relegation it was only for one season as they won the Division the following season. -- maybe try rewording this, the close-repetition of "season" is a little jarring.
• The following season four Liverpool players were implicated in the 1915 British football betting scandal. They were found guilty of conspiring with Manchester United players to fix a United win in a league match between the teams and were banned for life. -- I wonder if more could be said on this. Is it as big a deal as it sounds?
  • I wouldn't say it is that a big a deal, but I've added an anecdote and the names of the players. NapHit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It's definitely worth saying why the players' ban was rescinded. It's also worth noting if their were any long-term repercussions because of this? Was this kind of thing common at the time? -- Shudde ^talk 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Done for now. More to come. -- Shudde ^talk 08:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I should have fixed most of these now. Thanks for your time and comments Shudde, much appreciated. NapHit (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

More comments:

• He would lose his life -- again maybe just "He lost his life ..."
  • He lost his life on 6 May 1895 -- this is clearly an error. -- Shudde ^talk 05:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Should this not read "Such was Watson's popularity amongst his playing staff [that] Raisbeck, Ned Doig" ?
• fourth place the following season, before the club regained the League Championship in the 1921–22 season. Liverpool were favourites to win the league towards the end of the season -- it's the close repetition of season here that is a little off putting. Could it be reworded?
• However, a 4–1 victory over West Bromwich Albion was enough to secure Liverpool's third League Championship. -- Because of the previous sentence it may be worth stating when in the season this match was played (was it the last game?)
• I've noticed that sometimes you write "League Championship" and at other "league championship". On top of this when you write "championship" by itself sometimes. Should the first letter not just be capitalised in all cases?
• You probably don't need to link Second World War
• , as the club's form declined this seems redundant and can probably be cut
• Despite the increase in, Liverpool could not repeat their earlier success. -- this makes little sense
  • Despite the increase in spectators, Liverpool could not repeat their earlier success -- (Italics are mine). It makes more sense now, however I'm not sure what an increase in attendance is expected to do to help a team's form. This implies that their form should improve with more spectators, and I don't quite get that. -- Shudde ^talk 05:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• McQueen was unable to replicate his early success at the club and he retired in 1928 after his leg was amputated following a road accident, while he had been on a scouting assignment. -- not sure about the grammar here, it reads a bit funny
• McQueen was replaced as manager by George Patterson. -- Can more be said on why he was selected for the job?
• The Second World War brought about the loss of seven seasons to competitive league football in England. -- Again I'm not sure this makes sense. How about "League football in England was suspended for seven seasons due to the Second World War."
• The first game played at Anfield after the war was against Middlesbrough -- Again it might be worth mentioning the date of the match here -- considering football was suspended for so long and all.
• Their form declined towards the end of the season as they progressed further in the FA Cup, by the time they faced Everton in the semi-finals, they were out of contention and eventually finished 8th. -- This could do with a reword. It could be read to imply they finished 8th in the FA Cup even though I know that's not what you mean.
  • This is better but still a bit odd. Their League form declined, but they kept advancing in the FA Cup? -- Shudde ^talk 05:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I've reworded this now, should be clearer they are separate competitions. NapHit (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

*There are still duplicate links. There is tool to help with dup links (User:Ucucha/duplinks) that I recommend. Comments on the lead:

• through their first period of success -- maybe say when this was (I just read the article and I'm not 100% sure)
• You mention that Houlding owned Anfield in the lead but not in the main text. I'd add it in the main text, it'll help address a comment I had above
• I think the lead could do with a bit of an expansion. Mainly about the period 1914-1945. At the moment there is only two very short sentences on this period.

I am not really qualified to probe too much into whether this article meets the comprehensiveness criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. But there are a few things that I think could be expanded upon.

• Obviously some football was suspended due to the World Wars. Was this all football? What did this mean for the finances of the club? What happened to the professional players? The coaches? the staff? They all had to make a living right?
  • Again, very little of this is documented, I know player and future manager Bob Paisley fought in the war and that Liverpool won a few of the wartime competitions, I can try and work this in somehow? However, detail is scarce, so it may not be much. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a little bit out there ([2] for example, which looks like a reliable source to me). There were regional War Leagues -- did Liverpool play in any of these? Did any players serve in the "football battalion" [3] ? -- Shudde ^talk 04:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• On top of that, did any of the players or former players fight in either war? Were any killed?
  • As above, players did fight in the war, none were killed in the First World War I believe and seems to be the case for WWII aswell. One of the players found guilty in the 1915 betting scandal was killed during the war. Despite the fact he played for Manchester United I've added this detail. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I did find some information on the Second World War without much trouble (or books). Did Liverpool play in the Wartime League? According to [4] 76 players and staff enlisted during the Second World War. Also finding snipets of information at google books [5]. -- Shudde ^talk 04:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• It seems to me that managers were appointed for quite a long time. In fact many seem to have resigned for one reason or another (rather than being fired). I think more could be said on some of them considering how long they were in the role.
• On that point, did the nature of their role change at all over those 67 years?
  • I don't think the role changed too much during those 67 years, I think the appointment of Shankly in 1959, signalled a change, but other than that, I don't think it changed during this period. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Very little is ever mentioned about the financial state of the team. Can anything be added on this?
  • Going through my books, there is next to nothing about the finances of the club. I don't think the financial state of the club was as important historically as it is today. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I obviously don't have access to the resources that you do, but I did find [6]. I imagine finances were still an important consideration for the club. -- Shudde ^talk 04:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Another question -- ownership. This isn't mentioned other than Houlding -- but surely it changed during those seven decades? -- Shudde ^talk 04:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay I think I'm done now. I may need to check some of the references and images, but as far as prose goes, I don't have anything more to say. Cheers. -- Shudde ^talk 00:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Shudde, I've had a go at most of these now and they should be fixed. I'm going to the Netherlands for 5 days tomorrow, so I won't be able to do anything in that time. I've left the expansion you've suggested for the moment as I will look into that once I return. NapHit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have struck the comments that have been addressed. A few still need work, and I have added further comments where I think it's helpful. It's no rush, but do ping me if you address them further or have any questions. -- Shudde ^talk 06:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at these comments @Shudde: and have addressed your comments about where you felt expansion could be made. Thanks again for the comments. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I would expect there to be more information out there on some of those points I raised, but I don't have time to address your replies for a few days. I'll get on to it early next week. Sorry for the delay. -- Shudde ^talk 11:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty happy with prose now, but I do have a few concerns regarding comprehensiveness. Seems there are a few gaps that need filling. But it's very hard for me to be sure as I'm not an expert. -- Shudde ^talk 04:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the further comments Shudde, really appreciate your review here. I've added more detail about finances and ownership, I'm going to try and address the rest of your concerns tomorrow. Hopefully we're not too far off now! NapHit (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i've added more information now in regards to wartime, ownership of the club, managers and the finances. Let me know if you feel there is anything still missing. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for those edits. I think the information you've added has definitely addressed my concerns. I'm pretty happy to Support now. -- Shudde ^talk 05:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Note -- I didn't spot an image-licensing check or source review for formatting/reliability, you can request them at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added it to the list now. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

While we're waiting for a source review, it's expected that each paragraph in a featured article should end with a citation; third para of Consolidation and second para of Inter-war years don't at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Must of slipped through the net, during the review. Fixed it now, thanks Ian. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment (images need work) -- not a complete in-depth check, but make sure that every image contains source and author information (as detailed as possible) - they should all have a detailed "Summary" and a "Licensing" section. Several images lack author details or have extremely short and vague source info. Anonymous images like the lead image need a "reasonable enquiry" for authors and a brief description of this research in the author field (see UK tag). Source information like just "LFC" should be expanded whereever possible (where exactly was that image published and found?). I sympathize, it can be difficult to obtain such details for old photos (especially when you are not the uploader), but several of the source and author details are too thin to do a qualified copyright check. On a more positive note, most or maybe all of the images are likely PD - it's just not possible to ascertain that status based on the current info. 2 more tips: If you don't know a detail for sure, you can also add your best educated guess ("probably ...") - any information is better than none. If an author is unknown, add "unknown" in the author parameter (ideally with some background information about your research). Plan B: consider replacing some of the images with better documented files. GermanJoe (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @GermanJoe:, I've had a go at updating the images and have found sources for almost all of them. I removed one that I couldn't find a source for and have included one from the commons that is fine. hope that improves things. NapHit (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD, CC)

• All PD-files have active source links, authors are "unknown" (due to a age of 70-100+ years) - OK.
• I changed the other 2 PD-files to "UK unknown" and "US 1923"/"US" as well. Considering the evidence, that licensing should be (slightly) better.

Of course the source and publication info is still quite thin, but for such old photos it should be sufficient. GermanJoe (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources review

• Spotchecks not carried out
• F/n 26: I believe the publisher of this website is the National Football Museum
• Inconsistency in providing publisher locations. Show all, or none.

Otherwise, no issues with sources.

Finally, on a point not related to sources: the hatnote at the top of the article refers to History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959) and History of Liverpool F.C. (1985–present). But there is another WP article, History of Liverpool FC which, dreadful though it is, is what anyone googling "History Liverpool FC" is guided to. In my view, the content of that article should be deleted, and replaced with simple links to this, the pre-1959 and the post-1985 articles. At present, there is every chance that yours and the other two articles will be entirely missed in an internet search. Brianboulton (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the spotchecks Brian, they have been addressed. This has been mentioned by a few editors now at the talk page and I have to say I agree. I think I'll be bold and introduce the changes you and others have suggested. NapHit (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Further comment: The lead and text say that Liverpool's first match was against Rotherham Town in the Lancashire League. Rotherham is in Yorkshire, not Lancashire and, more to the point, Rotherham Town played in the Midland League; indeed, they were its champions in 1891–92 and 1892–93 – see here. According to the LFC official website, that first match against Rotherham was a friendly, which seems much more feasible. I recommend you amend the text accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Good spot, not sure how I missed that one. It has been amended now. Thanks Brian. NapHit (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Leaning to support: The article has undoubtedly benefitted from its long sojourn at FAC, but I would like to give it a general copyedit and tidying before committing myself to full support. Coordinators, please indulge for a further couple of days! Brianboulton (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Later: I have carried out a copyedit, which incorporates many of the points raised by Mattythewhite, below, who began his review while I was still working on the text. As I suspect he knows much more about football than I do, I suggest his comments are looked at carefully, although some will have been superseded by my alterations. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem Brian, thank you for taking the time to copyedit the article, I greatly appreciate it. I've let Matty know that most of his points should be addressed. NapHit (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mattythewhite Lead "following the resignation of": shouldn't this be resignations, as suggested above? Shouldn't Football League First Division be piped to just First Division? Should Championship be capitalised? Considering the context, I'd have thought it is a common noun and should therefore be lower case. "the club won further League Championship": plural so should be Championships. "increased the Anfield stadium's capacity": you've already mentioned that Anfield is a stadium, do readers need reminding here? Per Wiktionary, midtable is preferred to mid-table. "Liverpool became League Championship again": needs rewording. Formation "to a ground owned" -> "a ground owned". "The Football League": shouldn't "The" be lower case? "Unfortunately, theft of the league and cup trophies": I think I'd start this sentence with however, as unfortunately is a little POV. "first goal in league": Shouldn't league be capitalised, as you're referring to the Football League here? "Test Match" doesn't need capitalising, and I'm not sure we need the quotation marks either. "Their stay in the division lasted": to me, the wording of this sentence implies they were relegated by finishing bottom, but as the following sentence explains they were relegated after the test match. I'd suggest rewording it. Consolidation "promotion to the First Division in 1896": could you refer to the season here, for consistency? "followed by success in the play-offs": you mean the test matches, right? "semi-finals" -> "semi-final". "the first replay in Bolton": do you know what ground the match was played at? "which Sheffield won 1–0": should be Sheffield United, as they're never referred to as just Sheffield. "as they won the Division": I'm not sure about division being capitalised on its own. I'd either change it to lower case or write Second Division. "famous hill": Spion Kop (mountain) would be a more appropriate wikilink. "a local regiment had suffered heavy losses": wikilink this to Battle of Spion Kop. "many of them from Liverpool: wikilink to Liverpool. Is there really nothing to say about the 1910–13 period? "first FA Cup final, which they lost 1–0 to Burnley": is it worth mentioning where the match was played? Inter-war years "lost his life": isn't this a euphemism? "due to a desire": I'd cut this out. "His replacement, Director and former Liverpool player Matt McQueen": Director doesn't need capitalising. "age of their side": pedantic, but a side doesn't have an age. Replace with players. "They entered the 1923–24 season aiming to win a hat-trick of league titles. Yet they could only finish a disappointing 12th": I'd merge these sentences. "some football grounds": take out football, I think that goes without saying. "West Ham" -> "West Ham United". Decline "players weight": apostrophe missing. "The season had started well as the club was unbeaten" -> "The season had started well as Liverpool were unbeaten". "8th" -> eighth. "third round by Norwich City who were in the Third Division": perhaps shorten to "third round by Norwich City of the Third Division"? "During this season the club suffered the biggest defeat in its history, when they lost 9–1 ": mix of plural and singular in this sentence. "but their form began to tail off" -> "but their form tailed off". Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the comments @Mattythewhite:, I think a combination of Brian's alterations and mine should have fixed all these points. Let me know if there is anything that you feel is not right. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Comments from Mattythewhite I'm a little concerned about the balance of the lead. There's a four-sentence paragraph for a two-year period, a four-sentence paragraph for a 27-year period, and a four-sentence paragraph for a 39-year period. I'm not sure about the best way to tackle this. I've taken a bit off the first para and extended the second one a bit. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC) After the sentence starting "They finished in second place behind Aston Villa", we move straight from 1910 to 1914. Is there nothing to say about this period? Added a bit about the club's best finish during that period. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "The following year, 61,905 spectators watched Liverpool beat Wolverhampton Wanderers 2–1 in the fourth round of the FA Cup": the reference does not give the scoreline. It also says the match was in the fifth round, whereas 1951–52 FA Cup states it was in the fourth round. I'd use RSSSF to cite the scoreline and the round. Done NapHit (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "Liverpool's first season in the Second Division in 1954–55": this sentence is unsourced. Added a ref NapHit (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Referencing in general: a lot of sentences do not have citations, so I'm assuming you're only citing when a paragraph ends or you reach a sentence that requires a different reference (if that makes sense)? After all the chopping and changing of the last few days, I think it would be worthwhile you checking that everything is still properly cited. That makes sense and that is the gist of what I have done referencing wise. I've had a run through and it appears all the references are in their proper places. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks again @Mattythewhite:, I appreciate the time you've taken to review the article and copyedit it. Hopefully I've addressed your concerns. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Happy to support as I feel the article now meets the criteria. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Crikey, is this still open? Support conditional on reasonably addressing Matty's comments. --Dweller (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Support: Looks good now, worth rthe wait and effort. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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