Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–85)/archive1

Add links
From 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 by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2016 [1].

History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–85)[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most successful period in the history of Liverpool Football Club. From 1959 to 1985, Liverpool were the most successful football club in England, as they won numerous competitions domestically and internationally. The article is in good shape and I feel it is not far off the standard required to be featured. As always, all comments and feedback are welcomed. Cheers NapHit (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments taking a look now. Will copyedit as I go and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
with much-needed width - what does this mean?
It's regarding the team's need for players in the wide areas of the pitch i.e. on the right and left hand side of midfield. I'll try and change this up, so it's easier to understand. NapHit (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better, thanks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
who had been the club's left back for a number of seasons - vague - may as well put the exact number in
added the number of seasons. NapHit (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I don't see any prose-clangers remaining though I do feel the prose could do with a little tweaking somehow. I will re-read and see if I can find something specific that is actionable.

Any further comments @Casliber:? NapHit (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge of Liverpool isn't good. I am waiting on Dweller's appraisal to be concluded, specifically whether he feels the peacock wording and the historical context have been adequately addressed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Dweller was concerned about the lead and after I read it a few times I feel it is a bit too listy, I have tried to tighten it up thus to make it more engaging as it is very hard to list a whole bunch of trophies and make it sound engaging. I'll see what Dweller thinks and have another read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about WP:PEACOCK wording throughout, borderline POV comments that come across as editorialising. I'm loathe to go through and list them all at FAC. I'd rather the nominator took on board this comment, did a scan themselves and then come back to me. This is a serious enough issue for me to go strong oppose, but it's definitely fixable. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment @Dweller:, I have taken this onboard and gone through the article and tried to remove the instances that I have found. I'd appreciate if you could have another look over, I may have left one or two in their still. NapHit (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful strong oppose On the basis of looking at just one paragraph in depth. This article is inadequately referenced for an FA. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out Dweller, I return to England for Christmas in the next few days, so I will have access to my books and I will be able to go through the article and tidy it up and add references. NapHit (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've had a quick look over the article and added references where necessary @Dweller:. Hopefully, the article is better referenced now. NapHit (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definite improvement. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lack of historical context, which has a knock-on. At the start of this period, Liverpool had won just one trophy in the preceding 30 odd years. I think that's worth mentioning, as well as the glories that preceded that. However, to note a "lean spell" in the middle of this period is anachronistic. In the context of the period 1924- the anomaly was the wins, not the "lean spell". It only seems like a lean spell with our modern day perspective that rolls up the whole magnificent history of the club into one. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, especially regarding lean spell, I've changed that section to stability now and I'll added a bit about before Shankly arrived @Dweller:, though I'm not sure if it's enough. NapHit (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I don't doubt this is comprehensive on first glance, just think prose could be tightened in certain areas. Just some suggestions, only went as far as 'rebuilding':

  • "Liverpool were in the Second Division when Shankly arrived. He decided to overhaul the team, releasing 24 players...," → "Liverpool were in the Second Division when Shankly arrived. He overhauled the team, releasing 24 players...," to cut to the chase
  • "Two seasons later, the club won its first League championship since 1946–47, and Liverpool thereby qualified for continental club competition for the first time."
  • "Liverpool won the European Cup in the 1976–77 season and retained it the following season campaign," change it up to avoid the repetition of 'season'
  • "The 1963–64 season started poorly...," for Liverpool or the football season in general? That sentence needs a citation.
  • "A 2–1 victory over Everton, there first since 1950...," their?
  • "provided the impetus for Liverpool's move up the table," cut the fluff, how about 'instigated'?
  • Citation to prove "Success led to the average attendance at Anfield increasing to more than 50,000."?
    • The citation at the end of the following references both sentences. I can reference both sentences if you feel this better?
  • Ref 23 page number?
  • Ref 56 was published on theguardian.com, not the newspaper publication. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Lemonade51:, I've left responses where necessary and addressed your comments. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved down to the last section and restructured a few bits (intend to copyedit in the coming days), some more comments:

  • "Following their fifth-place finish in the League, the previous season, Liverpool were eager to regain the League championship," is there a quote from the manager, players or print media to support this? I do think a few direct quotes here and there from Shankly, Paisley, etc and the storied Liverpool players would enrich this article, provided they are short and snappy.
  • "Liverpool retained their League championship in the 1982–83 season, winning the League by 11 points from Watford, despite a run of five defeats and two draws in their last seven games." did Liverpool secure the title before or after this happened? I think if it's the former there's no real point of mentioning it -- winning it by 11 points suggests they were in a league of their own, so every reason to be lax.
  • "At the end of the season, Paisley announced that he would be stepping down as manager; he had won six League championships, three European Cups and League Cups during his reign, the most successful manager in the club's history." reads discombobulated
  • "A 0–0 draw in the first match at Wembley meant that the match was replayed at Maine Road the next week," a footnote to explain why the game was replayed at Maine Road wouldn't go amiss.
    • I can't find anything in any of my books as to the reason for the replay being held at Maine Road. I can hazard a guess, but that's not good enough for wikipedia. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess a wikilink would be sufficient, can't find a reputable explanation. Lemonade51 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The defence of their League championship was all but over in October, when Liverpool were in the relegation zone," the relegation places, zone is a bit journalese.

The prose is sufficient, but I'm finding it rigid in parts. I do have a few Liverpool books on hand, so I'll try to see if more can be done about historical context/check you haven't omitted anything major. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Lemonade51:, they've all been addressed and I have commented above on one. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right I've had a go tightening up the last two sections, feel free to revert if there are any problems. Some more, all concerning 'Transition':

  • "Despite Liverpool taking the lead in extra time after a goalless 90 minutes," noun + -ing form, instead of 'despite' here maybe "Although Liverpool took the lead..."
  • "It was the club's eighth League title, equalling the record held by Arsenal.", ref?
  • "Despite their lack of success in other competitions, Liverpool reached the final of the FA Cup against Newcastle United, winning the match 3–0 to win the cup for the second time," ref?
  • "Shankly continued to turn up at Melwood, the club's training ground, where the players still to refer to him as 'boss'," still referred Lemonade51 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the further comments @Lemonade51:, they have all been addressed. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

  • "The addition of Keegan almost helped Liverpool to the League championship." → "The addition of Keegan almost helped Liverpool regain the League championship."
  • "A return to the European Cup in the 1966–67 season saw Liverpool eliminated in the second round by Dutch side Ajax 7–3 on aggregate", given there is an entry on this particular game, I think you could link it.
  • As well as bringing in the boot room, it shouldn't be overlooked that Shankly introduced the all-red kit, which could be incorporated somewhere. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really want this to pass. You've clearly put in a lot of work and your attitude to comments here is spot on. I've raised an issue on Cas Liber[pool]'s user talk and we'll try to get it dealt with. I'd prefer it if this nom could be held open longer than usual to give time for it to be resolved, as it's so close. --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice words @Dweller:, I appreciate it. It's a pleasure to work with great editors such as yourselves. Looking forward to the further comments. NapHit (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking in @Dweller: and @Casliber:, what do you guys think about the article at the moment? I understand you're busy and have other commitments, but any further comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • References are formatted accordingly and consistently, six links work.
  • The 'Anatomy of Liverpool' book was written by Wilson, with Scott Murray. Is that enough to warrant a co-author credit?
  • I don't have access to the book sources apart from the one mentioned above. I've crosschecked a few random sources (14, 27, 41, 42, 50, 52, 82) and found no signs of close paraphrasing.
  • In the first section, start of quote is unnecessarily capitalised " "YOU got a more wide-ranging discussion in the Boot Room than the boardroom."
  • "Shankly's team was beginning to age, and a number of players had moved on or retired. Gerry Byrne, who had been the club's left back for 12 seasons, retired after making 273 League appearances. Shankly now had the task of replacing the players in his squad. He started the process with the purchase of Hughes and then Ray Clemence the season before, but his signings did not always work out.," this whole section needs citations, Lemonade51 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the additional comments @Lemonade51:, should have addressed them all. Regarding the comment directly above, the last bit is referenced by the sentence immediately after it. Also should Murray be added to all of Wilson's inline citations?NapHit (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness. No real issues with the validity of sources either. It's a more rounded article than when it was nominated, with identifiable context. I still think the prose could be tightened (someone should have another look at t'lead), but the puffery language has been reduced to the point that it's clear and coherent. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mattythewhite. I've gone through the article and have done some copyediting and have reorganised the reference sections.
  • The section headings would benefit from including the year ranges they pertain to.
  • I feel there should be more detail on Bill Shankly re his appointment; was he successful at another club, was he the previous manager's assistant etc?
  • "Players such as Clemence, Larry Lloyd, Alec Lindsay and Steve Heighway, who was signed towards the end of the season": it's unclear to me whether you mean they all signed towards the end of the season, or just Heighway. I'd also order them alphabetically.
  • As someone who's reference-obsessed, I feel every sentence (or claim) should have a citation following it, especially as this is a candidate for FA.
    • Those sentences that are not referenced are generally covered by the reference in the next sentence if that makes sense. For instance, the Shankly signings didn't work out sentence is supported by the reference in the next sentence. NapHit (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I'm not sure that should cut it for FA. By referencing every sentence, any doubt a reader may have over a claim's verifiability is removed. And someone, at some point in the future, could unsourced content inbetween two sentences that are covered by one reference, which could go unchallenged with the incorrect assumption the following reference covers it. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section covering the events of the Heysel Stadium disaster doesn't actually mention the ground or disaster by name, which seems strange.
  • Most of the books in the bibliography are lacking publisher locations.
  • There's very little about finances and ownership. Could this be expanded on, to make the article more comprehensive?
    • Regarding this, I'm back in Barcelona now after being home for Christmas, so I don't have access to my books. I'm not sure how much about the ownership and finances there was in them. There is an online copy of John Williams Reds biography, but that has minimal info as well. I'm not sure how to proceed with this. NapHit (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be that very little happened on finances, but it's still worth exhausting the offline/online resources you can access. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a bit more info on this, from what I could scrape together. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've got most of these or responded above. Cheers NapHit (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- This has been open a long time without achieving consensus to promote but I'm prepared to leave it open a little longer so that Dweller, Casliber and Mattythewhite have a chance to revisit and offer final comments. N.B. We'd also need an image licensing review if it remains open. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look, I didn't think it looked too bad, but I can miss prose issues sometimes. I think it has improved (I did some tightening and can see some others have done so too) and offer a cautious support on the proviso that @Dweller: and @Mattythewhite: are satisfied with the prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've neglected/held this up too long. A number of issues were fixed. Please do not wait on me any longer. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding sourcing: check Shankly 1976, p84; Wilson & Murray 2010, p. 93.; Wilson & Wilson Murray, pp. 124–125. None of them are pointing to a citation. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review @Crisco 1492:, I've added the disclaimer to the European Cups image and fixed the references. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2016 (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_Liverpool_F.C._(1959–85)/archive1&oldid=703507686"