Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C./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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2019 [1].

History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): Hzh (talk · contribs), Govvy (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is has come together nicely. Hzh has done alot of heavy lifting here and I can't see anything actionable prose- or comprehensiveness-wise. With three nominators issues should be dealt with promptly. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to weigh in here, as well as here and here. The nominators could help one another, me, and the community, by commenting on the other two pages. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay @Dweller: we're ready.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See below. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from SN54129[edit]

You've done a job of work on this and no mistake. A couple of points on prose that jump out at a skim read. No major malfunctions though.

Background
  • president until 1894, would became an important > become
Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • between themselves, the number of friendly fixtures against other clubs however would gradually increase > In the first two years, the boys largely played games between themselves; the number of friendly fixtures against other clubs would, however, gradually increase
Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • this was changed for 1895 to 1898 > from?
Changed to "changed in 1895" (the 1898 date is probably unnecessary since the following sentence showed that it changed again in 18991898). Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Error corrected. Hzh (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Professional status
  • On this the London Football Association found the club > On this, the London Football Association found the club
Wording adjust. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreed to play for Spurs, but arrived without any kit > agreed to play for Spurs but arrived without any kit
Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, press coverage over the incidence raised > However, press coverage over the incident raised
Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • found the club guilty of professionalism with financial inducement to attract a player to the club after Fulham complained of poaching of their player
Makes for heavy reading this; certainly a comma is required after "club", but is it possible to tighten the sentence? Possibly by splitting it? Also, can the phrase "professionalism with financial inducement" be linked or otherwise clarified—for example, is it a legal term, the term the source uses, or your rewording of the source?
Both "professionalism" and "financial inducement" are found in various sources, although some sources use "unfair inducement" which may be the original judgement as they used it in quotation marks. I have decide to rewrite it as Fulham then complained to the London Football Association that Tottenham had poached their player and were guilty of professionalism having breached amateur rules. On the latter charge, the London Football Association found Tottenham guilty as the payment for the boots was judged an 'unfair inducement' to attract the player to the club. I hope this is satisfactory. Hzh (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Wording adjusted. Hzh (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles Roberts and a local businessman John Oliver > Charles Roberts and local businessman John Oliver
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • took up post as the first ever manager of Spurs > took up postwas appointed the first manager of Spurs.
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • cup-winning > should this be Cup-winning? I'm not too sure myself, but I'm leaning towards it being a proper noun.
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1901 FA Cup
  • Kirkham however was not a success > Kirkham, however, was not a success
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Highs and lows
  • charge however saw Spurs unexpectedly relegated > charge, however, saw Spurs unexpectedly relegated
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tresadern however failed to lift > Again, add commas. Note—however!—that this is one of the most over- and mis-used words in wirtten English. I know this is a big article, but you use it over seventy times; they're not all necessary. I'm not going to comment on them again, but suggest ctrl+f and eliminating those you don't need (most of them) and adding commas where you do.
Thanks for the suggestion. I have removed/reworded some of these so that it won't get too repetitive, will go through the others to see how they might be rewritten. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter McWilliam returned to Spurs, and tried to rebuild > Peter McWilliam was brought back as manager, and tried to rebuild...or something like that. No Spurs necessary; we know what team we're talking about by now!
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • beyond the quarter finals of the FA Cup in the 30s > beyond the quarterfinals of the FA Cup in the 30s...one word
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • travel long distance for the matches drawn up by the Football League, and decided to run their own competitions > no comma required
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The spurs way
  • terrible state of the White Hart Lane pitch, > Ditto.
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the best ever start by any club in the top flight of English football, until it was > It was to be the best start by any club in the top flight of English football until it was
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The double
  • the final of the 1960–61 FA Cup extraneous space
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1st Euro triumph
  • Rotterdam, Spurs won 5–1, including ditto
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing success
  • Steve Perryman would become Spurs' longest serving player hyphenate "longest serving"
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and revival
  • Tottenham managed to reached four cup finals > reach
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relegation
  • 70s cup-winning team had by now left or retired Again, cap for Cup?
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A memorable game early in the season came at home to Bristol Rovers, when Spurs won 9–0, no comma req.
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cup wins
  • a new phase of redevelopment of White Hart Lane > choice of: a new phase of the redevelopment of White Hart Lane / a new phase of redeveloping White Hart Lane / a new phase of redevelopment at White Hart Lane.
Done. Last option used. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cup and boardroom drama
  • Spurs managed a nine game unbeaten start, hyphenate "nine-game"
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undo this as it is the title of a news article. Hzh (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • who had little knowledge of the club's history (alleged to have said... > who had little knowledge of the club's history (and was alleged to have asked}}...or something Incidentally. does "double" have to be capitalised? I wouldn't have thought so, important as it is to Spurs fans  :)
Done. As for "Double", I have no opinion one way or another, most sources appear to capitalise it, but if Wikipedia editors prefer it uncapitalised, then it can be done that way. What's the general opinion here? Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • but then reverted on appeal Think you mean, "reversed on appeal"
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Premier league
  • as replacement for the > to replace the
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ardiles
  • after Sheringhham was injured Of all the names for you to mis-spell!
Ooops, I actually have a tendency to use 2 Rs for his name, not 2 Hs! Corrected. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in June 1994 the club was found found guilty of making It was only found once
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Nice article. ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for pointing out the errors, I have a tendency not to see my own mistakes. Much appreciated. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appear to have made some errors saving the edits, but I hope they have all been fixed now. Hzh (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: are you happy that all actionable issues have been actioned? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Indeed; I see the however issue was brought up below, but that its usage has been reduced to nearly single-figures. Everything else has also been addressed. Up the Irons! :p D Supporting this candidature. ——SerialNumber54129 12:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of "however"[edit]

Even by Wikipedia practices, 26 uses of "however" is far too many. Use it only where needed to show contrast, and not as just another conjunction. Consider using "but", or recasting the sentence to use "although". Eric Corbett has some good advice and links here and here. Kablammo (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I have removed/reworded some of them, and will go over the article again to see how I can write the others better. Hzh (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the goal differences and table positions charts
I've made them somewhat larger, but I'm not sure making them any bigger would look good. Hzh (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tottenham_hotspur_1901.jpg: per the tag, should specify steps taken to try to ascertain authorship. When/where was this first published?
Authorship wasn't clear as no copyright information was present in the 1901 match day booklet, Govvy (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you confused it with the other image, but this one was published in 1921 in the book A Romance of Football - The History of the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 1882-1921. I've added that information for the image file. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the author of this photograph, and as his date of death appears to be in 1953, the copyright would not expire until 2024 in the UK. It therefore cannot stay in Wikimedia Commons, I will move this into English Wikipedia (it is OK there as it is public domain in the US). Hzh (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File moved to English Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Facupfinal1901-D.jpg: source link is dead, need more info on steps taken to try to ascertain authorship
Will look into this. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found the author for this photograph yet despite looking into a number of books and a few other sources. I guess we may consider that its author "cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry", but I will keep looking for a bit longer yet (one of the publications where it might have been published is not yet completely digitised, so it is hard to tell if it is there). Hzh (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to use only one image for the season, and removed in favour of a group photo. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:TottenhamHotspurFC_League_Performance.svg needs a source for the data presented. Same with File:Tottenham_Hotspurs_F.C_Cumulative_Goal_Difference_1992_to_Oct_09.png
The data can be found in here and here. I will add them to the article. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:West_stand_of_White_Hart_Lane_in_1909.jpg: when/where was this first published?
Unfortunately the source does not state where it was published apart from the date which was 1909. It should be public domain in the US as it was published before 1923, I can remove this image while I look further into this. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, haven't found much about this image, but will continue looking. I noticed a discrepancy in the date by looking at the stadium closely (the photograph is likely to have been taken in 1910 or later since it has a cockerel which was placed on top of the stand in 1910), so I won't use it until it has been resolved. Hzh (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Spurs_team_with_the_Cup_Winners'_Cup_trophy_1963.jpg: not seeing that licensing at the given source? Same with File:Ajax_vs_Spurs_1981_European_Cup_Winners'_Cup.jpg
The Ajax Spurs image and 1963 trophy, licensing is CC0 1.0 Universeel (CC0 1.0) Publiek Domein Verklaring Govvy (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both images are listed as public domain in the Dutch National Archives website - licensing is given in the sources [2][3].

Also seeing a number of ref errors that should be sorted before someone does a source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a couple of things, but couldn't see anything else - can you be more specific? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not doing a full source review at this point, but quickly: some footnotes don't link to Bibliography entries, some Bibliography entries aren't linked from footnotes, some inconsistencies in italicization (see for example BBC Sport), most web sources use cite templates but a couple don't, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the issues that need fixing. I've dealt with some of those, and will go through the article again to see if there are any more. Hzh (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dweller[edit]

This is essentially a great article. Maybe a local map with annotations would help, if you can find someone to do it.

I've started some copyediting. There is a lot, and I mean a lot of curious use of English. Most objectionable is the repeated use of the word "would" instead of the ordinary perfect tense, or sometimes future tense. I fixed a bunch, but when I saw there were roughly 50 more occurrences, I thought the team that wrote the article really ought to fix this. Please ping me when done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have gotten it down to 9 "would"s, almost all of which I think are appropriate use to make smoothest language Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The goal difference chart is an interesting addition. But I'm not sure what it's trying to say that the league position chart doesn't. As the text doesn't seem to refer to it, and it's already 9 years out of date, I'd consider updating it and explaining it significance somehow, or removing it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I will remove that. Hzh (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that although I thought the chart is unnecessary and out of date, if anyone wants to update an use the chart in the article, they can. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some WP:RECENTISM issues. Nine paragraphs on the most successful period in the club's history (1958-1974, 16 years), 1 parag for every 2 years, 11 major trophies I counted on the main club page. most recent period (1992-2018) 23 paragraphs on the 26 years, 1 parag for every year, 2 major trophies. Should be the other way round. Expand the earlier period and trim the excessive recent detail. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree to some extent that there is a bit of RECENTISM, but not all of it. There have been 13 managers from 1993 to 2018 (25 years), compared to 18 in the previous 100 years. The higher turnover of manager means that more needs be written to cover the period properly. I think a couple of paragraphs could be removed in the 1992-2018 period, and a paragraph could be added in the 1958-1974 period. I will do that later. Hzh (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good response, thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The box about the quote misallocated to Burkinshaw is utterly bewildering and comes across as somewhere between smartarsery and original research --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will think about how to reword it, or whether to remove it altogether. I added it because it is often quoted to indicate a change in football in the 1980s, but it might not be necessary. Hzh (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been removed. That quote was frequently used to indicate a sense of regret and nostalgia before football clubs became commercial enterprises - before that clubs were often owned by wealthy local individuals (or families for clubs such as Tottenham whose shares were handed down through generations) who treated the clubs with benevolence, but it is too much having to give a long explanation for such a short quote. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to FAC team: there's a lot of work going on with the article at the moment. Inactivity here isn't inactivity. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators, please look out for detail that falls between excessive and insufficient with regard to players. For example, this paragraph:

Soon after the club became a limited company, on 14 March 1898, Frank Brettell was appointed the first manager of Spurs.[33] Bretell signed a number of players from northern clubs, such as Harry Erentz, Tom Smith, Harry Bradshaw, James McNaught, and in particular John Cameron, who signed from Everton in May 1898 and was to have a considerable role in the history of the club. Cameron became player-manager the following February, after Bretell left to take a better-paid position at Portsmouth, and led the club to its first trophies, the Southern League title in 1899-1900 and the 1901 FA Cup. In his first year as manager, he signed seven players: George Clawley, Ted Hughes, David Copeland, Tom Morris, Jack Kirwan, Sandy Tait and Tom Pratt. In the following year Sandy Brown replaced Pratt who wanted to return to the North despite being the top goalscorer. They, together with Cameron, Erentz, Smith and Jones, formed the 1901 Cup-winning team.[34]

...names 12 or 13 players (never been very good at maths), but only refers to the importance of four or five of them. So why mention the others by name? In an article about the history of a club that's well over 100 years old, surely you should only mention the really very important players - and in every case where you do, the reader will want to know why they merit mention. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another example. I remember Pauls Stewart and Walsh very well, but their inclusion in the article is fairly baffling. Why them and not Nayim (or even Vinny SidewaysSamways)? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I need @Hzh:'s input here, but one can only put in what the sources say, and if Goodwin has identified that (his or whosever) common thinking was that Fenwick and Walsh were the pivotal signings that were supposed to (and failed) to lift the club then that's who gets mentioned I guess. I do agree that it is better to as much as possible include some sort of reason as to why a person is included. However there are times when it is unavoidable (but should be minimised as much as possible) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that the first Cup winning team need to be mentioned in full, but if others feel that some can be removed, then do so. As for the others, it's about how to fit them into the narrative. For example, Nayim first came on loan to Spurs, but later became part of the deal to bring Gary Lineker to the club, it's whether he is significant enough to warrant a special mention on how he came to the club, which I don't think he is. Same for Vinny Samways. Fenwick and Walsh are included because they fit into the narrative. Paul Stewart was at that time a big signing, so he was mentioned. Others, however, may have a different opinion, and I don't really object if anyone feels that names need to be removed or added. Hzh (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed two of the names from the quote given above so that only members of the Cup-winning team are left. Hzh (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should add I have no problem with listing lots of players from the early 1950s or early 1960s sides as they were the peak years and (I guess) th whole team contributed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are still lots of named players littering the article in all eras, whose supreme importance is not asserted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It will take a bit of time to write more on individual players, but I will try to do that the next couple of days. I'm not sure they could be said to be of supreme importance (there are really only a few who could be said to be of supreme importance), but most of them were certainly players important enough to be worth mentioning. I'll see if there is anyone who can be removed. Hzh (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the rivalry with Arsenal is so important to Spurs, relegating the genesis of the rivalry to an aside in brackets feels insubstantial. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered in greater detail in North London derby and even on the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. page (which is, incidentally, much smaller than this one and has more room to be expanded). Some material such as supporters and rivalries could be interpreted as being a bit 'meta' to the chronological flow of the club's fortunes and hence may be better covered in the parent page rather than the history page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfair and poorly timed comment: I'm just not active enough (watch my next edit) at the moment to do this justice. It's a huge and high quality piece of work but I have strong reservations about the quality of the prose. In places, it looks like it's been written by someone for whom English is a second language, something I've alluded to in a number of edit summaries as I've been slowly copy-editing. I cannot commit to finishing the job and I feel I'm slowing down this process. So here's my thought. Support, entirely conditional on detailed third-party copyedit. Without one, I'm actually really close to oppose (and if I'm true to myself, I would oppose on those grounds if it weren't that Cas was involved, to whom I owe a great deal, and merely offering conditional support grieves me). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair call (I respect people being thorough and honest) - there is a huge amount of text in the article and each reviewer has found some basic grammar issues as well as the usual prose-smoothing. I'll ask around. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Here are my comments on the article. You might find it useful for the comments about English and for how far I got. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: it's had a run through by an independent copyeditor. Do you feel it flows better? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are few editors around who are better writers than Eric Corbett. Unconditional Support --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks/much appreciated. I think the cosmos rebalanced itself as his team beat Spurs 1-0 last week....sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • I have checked through the first half of the references. There are several instances where I am not convinced that the source meets the required criteria for quality and reliability. Would you care to comment on the following?
  • Ref 3 and others: Hotspur HQ
All replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11: Save the Red House
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 13: Aford Awards
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 61: A Halftime Report
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 66: The Fighting Cock
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 132: Who Ate All The Pies
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 143:
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
some can definitely be replaced by book refs. Will look more later as RL beckons... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can make a start replacing the references a bit later. Most are easily replaceable, there might be one or two that are difficult to replace, but we can deal with that later if nothing else can be found. Hzh (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Took a while to find other sources for the information in Save the Red House, but all have been fixed now. Hzh (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition there are a few minor glitches
  • Ref 22 Harvard error
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 46 Source wrongly stated as Spurs HQ
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 133 Chapter reference missing
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 150 Harvard error (Source given as "Goodman")
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ref numbers are as at the date of this post. A report on the second half will follow presently. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Continuing - second column:

  • More sources that I would like you to comment on in terms of quality/reliability:
  • Ref 168: HITC
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 187: Football Site
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 208: FourFourTwo
This is FourFourTwo, which is a notable football magazine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 225: football.london
replaced that one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 274: Goal
This is Goal (website). Would seem to be reliable (writers/size etc.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other points
  • Ref 177: publisher details and date missing
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 178: publisher details missing
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 180: publication date missing
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 198: publisher details missing
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 270: publisher details missing
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography: there are no citations to the Hunter Davies book
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead links
  • According to the external link checking tool the following are dead links: Refs 106, 151, 159 (numbers correct at time of this posting)
Ref 106 replaced as it appears to be permanently dead. Ref 151 fixed. Red 159 seemed OK, but I added its archived link anyway. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the above, this looks like a comprehensively sourced article with over 300 citations, mostly to sources of appropriate quality and reliability.Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to check the sources. Much appreciated. If you notice anything else do let us know. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

A few thoughts from a quick canter through:

  • Date ranges
    • e.g. In the 1921–22 season – the MoS, Heaven knows why, now bids us spell out date ranges, e.g. 1921–1922 season, God save us!
need to look at/think about this - seems really counterintuitive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Counterintuitive as in "bloody silly", but heigh ho! Tim riley talk 20:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • There is some confusion of singular-v-plural. We start off singular for the first three sentences and then switch, unannounced, to plural in the fourth.
singularised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early decades in the Football League (1908–1949)
    • "The rivalry begun six years earlier" – "began", I think you mean
fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highs and lows of the interwar years
    • The MoS discourages use of definite articles within headers
trimmed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • War and post-war lull
    • The OED prescribes a hyphen in "semi-final".
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Villas-Boas and Sherwood
    • "former Swansea City loanee" – this needs a bit of work. The OED defines "loanee" as "One to whom a loan has been granted; a borrower", which I don’t think you mean here. Also it is not clear whether Sigurðsson was lent to or by Swansea. I pass over the clunky false title. A sports article is perhaps OK with such tabloidese.
leave it like this as that is where he was physically just before and where he attracted the attention of the two clubs (Liverpool and Spurs) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these few quick points are of use. Tim riley (Everton F.C.) talk 19:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they are/thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, BrEng has a weird pluralisation for football teams. When I've worked on FACs on football before, I've dealt with the corporate body club in the singular ("Norwich City is the best club in Anglia") and the team in the plural ("Norwich City are the best team in Anglia"). But pretty much whatever you do looks wrong to someone. What's important is consistency. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right: personally I'd pluralise the lot, but it's a matter of personal preference, and consistency is really the most important thing. Tim riley talk 20:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a headache whichever way. At least is consistently singular or have ducked it a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we stick to singular for the club and plural for team, it would be consistent. Using plural for the team is standard in British English, not doing it would be even more confusing to British readers. It is also common to use singular for the club (an example from a news article ...the club is very well run... - [4], note also the use of plural in Tranmere are...) Using singular or plural in a sentence simply signals to the readers what is being referred to in that sentence. The only confusion that may arise (for non-BrEng speakers) is when plural is used for the club, which is possible in British English for football club. Hzh (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Tim Riley: can you see anything else actionable to improve? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Fixing the ping for Tim riley. Sarastro (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the article, which, as far as I can see meets the FA criteria. At 11,500 words it's on the long side, but I didn't detect any waffling or digression. Some topics seem to attract voluminous prose (Bollywood, anyone?) and perhaps readers most likely to read them prefer it so. Happy to support despite the length. Tim riley talk 18:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thx/much appreciated! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kosack[edit]

Resolved comments from Kosack

Casliber has asked me to take a look at this one. My initial comments on a run through:

Lead

Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Football League Cup to EFL Cup to avoid the redirect.
Done. Also adjusted to League Cup as it is the more common name and the name has changed. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Formation

  • All Hallows Church is linked to a redirect.
Fixed, Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ripsher, who stayed as president until 1894'', should this be "stayed on"?
Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spurs played in navy-blue shirts with a letter H on a scarlet shield with on the left breast.", something missing from this sentence.
Removed an extraneous "with". Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of seasons here that are left unlinked but, as the article develops, season links seem to become the norm. Is there any reason these earlier seasons are unlinked?
Linked. Sometimes it's just carelessness, although for the early period it is not certain if the links are relevant as the team didn't compete in the Football League and no information is given on the league they were in in those links. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professional status

  • "they were admitted to the Division One of Southern League", should that be the Southern League?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to White Hart Lane

  • Charringtons link is a redirect.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first game at the White Hart Lane", is the necessary here?
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1901 FA Cup

  • 1901 FA Cup, Preston North End, Sandy Brown, Tom Smith, Football League and Western League are all linked here despite being linked in previous sections. WP:OVERLINK discourages repeat links like this.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they started their first overseas tour,", was this a repeating tour? If not, started sounds odd considering it must have presumably ended the same year.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Election to the Football League

  • The 1908-09 season link in the second sentence should be extended to include the word season as it is referring to the actual season rather than the year. Just to avoid being slightly WP:EASTEREGGy.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billy Minter is linked in the first paragraph and is already linked previously in the article.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "charged in battles", should that be "charged into battles"?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tommy Clay's link needs piping.
Done. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chelsea repeat linked in the fourth paragraph.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Division 2 is used in the last paragraph, this is the only time the name of a division uses a number. Avoid using different formats to avoid confusion.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interwar years

  • Tommy Clay, Preston North End, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Billy Minter all linked again here. Taffy O'Callaghan is also linked twice here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plymouth > Plymouth Argyle
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War and post-war lull

  • Arthur Turner and Highbury repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an arrangement that last from the early 1920s ", should that be lasted?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

League title

  • Sheffield Wednesday repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Rowe

  • Ipswich > Ipswich Town.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Nicholson and the Glory Years (1958–1974)

  • No need for glory years to be capitalised in the heading.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everton repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FA cup > FA Cup.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Double

  • "was broken by a loss at Hillsborough in November", probably expecting too much for the reader to know who plays at Hillsborough. I would add the team name in there.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheffield Wednesday repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing success

  • Chelsea repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Football League Cup to EFL Cup.
link tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • West Ham are mentioned for the first time here in relation to Martin Peters. Link and use full team name.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline and revival under Keith Burkinshaw (1974–1984)

  • "reach four cup finals in 4 years and winning three", avoid switching numbers from words to digits in the same sentence.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could probably do with an explanation of what "under-the-counter payments" are, or at least a relevant link.
Linked. Hzh (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Danny Blanchflower repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relegation

  • Pat Jennings repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • first division > First Division
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cup wins and European success

  • Manchester City and Queens Park Rangers both repeat linked here.
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "semis", I think I'd stick with semi-final here rather than using semis.
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shreeves and Pleat (1984–1987)

  • "should have booked them a UEFA Cup place", booked a little informal maybe. Secured, perhaps?
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cup win and boardroom drama

  • England repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • plc is linked here but is unlinked in its first mention earlier in the text. Move the link to the first use.
Done. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sugar dealing with the club's debt", how did he deal with it? Did he pay it off or something else?
That's just him making arrangement with the bank so that the club can ride out its financial crisis without a hitch (he has the financial clout to do so) and then a rights issue, nothing very exciting, I'm thinking it might be better to delete that part because to explain further is not that interesting, and leaving it unexplained may be unsatisfactory. Hzh (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you've removed this now. It's entirely your decision if you feel the information is unnecessary of course, I was just thinking of trying to clarify the information for an unfamiliar reader. Kosack (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of Premier League football (1992–2004)

  • Nottingham Forest repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sheringham transfer was later the subject of allegations of "bungs" against Forest manager Brian Clough", what were the allegations?
The allegation was that Clough "liked a bung" (i.e. he wanted a bribe for the transfer to go ahead). He was said to have received £58,750 for the Sheringham transfer, and £1 million in total for all the transfers he was involved in [5]. I'm not sure if anything more need to be added apart from linking "bung" to bribery, but if others want further explanation it can be added. As with the "under-the-counter payment" that Bill Nicholson refused to pay, it seems that bribery was fairly common in football in that period. Hzh (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with just the link being added for clarity with an unusual term, probably not worth extra detail for something not really linked to the subject. Kosack (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the heaviest punishment ever dished out to an English club", dished out seems a bit sensationalist and journalistic.
toned down Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coca-Cola Cup > League Cup. Avoid using sponsored competition names.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ardiles, Francis and Gross

  • "as well as a teenager Ledley King", should that be "as well as teenager Ledley King" or "as well as a teenage Ledley King"?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • South stand > South Stand
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New ownership and Glenn Hoddle

  • "but they ended the Season 2001–02 season", bit of unnecessary wording there.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Villas-Boas and Sherwood

  • Tim Sherwood is repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A new era under Pochettino (2014–present)

  • 2014–15 League Cup Final > link?
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stamford Bridge, Leicester and Premier League all repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New stadium

  • 2016-17 season, Manchester United and North London derby all repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Dave Moor is the author of historicalfootballkits.co.uk (ref 25). See [6].
Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 52 and 168 are by The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation and have an available author (Paul Felton).
For the second ref I put two authors down using the author element. Wondering if I should do the same for ref 52. Govvy (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, could do. The site doesn't really make it too clear what James' role was but he was obviously involved in the collection of the information at the very least Kosack (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
k, made both those ref's match each other for author. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 197, BBC > BBC Sport
Ref points to news.bbc.co.uk so changed work element to BBC News. Govvy (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 250, BBC Sports > BBC Sport.
 Fixed Govvy (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 228, 238, 240, 244, 265 and 266 list the authors by first name-last name. However, the rest of the references use last name-first name. Try to stick to one style for consistency.
Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does ref 273 need "at White Hart Lane" in the author's surname?
 Fixed Govvy (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an experienced FA reviewer but I have experience reviewing GAs and I would raise all of the points above in a normal GA review. As such, I would assume they would be worth dealing with at FA level. There is a minor but consistent WP:OVERLINK issue throughout but that's not hard to deal with. There is also some inconsistency in position wording, for example both fifth and 5th are used in the article, although I'm unsure of how important that is so I'll leave it up to others to raise if necessary. Happy to take any constructive criticism of my review if its not up to scratch though. Kosack (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to go over the article, excellent work, much appreciated. I've fixed some of the issues you have identified and will go through the others later. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, correctly writing in prose numbers below 10 should be written, but not sure where they are, might need to be more specific where the errors might be. Govvy (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found most if not all of them. Let me know if I missed any. Hzh (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: I think we got everything, with two outstanding issues, Sugar and "bung" - whether we expand and explain...or just delete. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up[edit]

I've had another run through today and found a few more issues to look at.

Early years

  • "the club played the 1892–93 season for first time in a league", this doesn't quite make sense.
reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1901 FA Cup

  • "the 1901 cup win", should that be "1901 Cup" if this is a direct reference to the FA Cup?
it is/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War and post-war lull

  • "first gained their playing experience for the club in this period", sounds a little odd to me, could do with reordering? "Gained their first playing experience..." perhaps?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spurs managed to stay in the top half of Second Division" > the Second Division?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note above would leave "the top half of the Second Division in the three seasons..." which is a bit repetitive. Maybe swap the last one for "during his three seasons as manager" or something similar?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Spurs Way

  • "Rowe signed future captain Danny Blanchflower, for a record £30,000", I would suggest clarifying that this was a club record. The fee was only three years off being the British record transfer fee, so a casual reader may get confused.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Nicholson and the glory years (1958–1974)

  • "behind the champion Burnley" > champions
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it still remains the club record win", should that be club's?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cup wins and European success

  • "two Argentinian World Cup winning stars", stars seem to be a bit of a WP:PEACOCK term. Villa for example made two substitute appearances in Argentina's seven matches at the tournament.
changed to "internationals" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "beating Queens Park Rangers in 1982 Final.", word missing from this sentence.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a fan with ambition of owning the club, started to buy up shares in the club", slight repetition here, using the club in very close proximity.
removed the amibtion bit as it is implied by the behaviour of buying up shares... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shreeves and Pleat (1984–1987)

  • "Perryman left the club in 1986 after 19 years at the club", again some slight repetition.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "missed out on the first division title to Everton" > First Division.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "new signings by Venables Terry Fenwick and Paul Walsh failed to lift the team,[158] The team could only manage a 13th-place finish", appears to be a mix of two sentences here.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of Premier League football (1992–2004)

  • "pushed for the founding of Premier League" > the Premier League.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resurgence and the Champions League (2004–2014)

  • "the worst start to a season in the club history" > club's history.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "director of Football", capital letter missing here.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Redknapp

  • "was appointed as Ramos' replacement at Tottenham, and Tottenham reverted", first use of Tottenham could probably be dropped here. Slightly repetitive and its probably safe to assume that it would be at Tottenham at this point.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "winning ten out of the 12 points", WP:NUMNOTES would suggest that comparable figures in the same sentence should be written in the same format. Either both in words or both in digits.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That'll probably be all from me on this one. Kosack (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok Kosack, all done... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm happy that all of the issues I and others raised here have been addressed. The article is well written and detailed. I would support promotion. Kosack (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the thorough working-over. I hope it makes you feel more confident to nominate your one again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I've read part of the way through the article and have a couple of (minor) thoughts so far, not counting ones that were mentioned above:

  • "and also the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup." Remove "also", as that is just an extra word that adds nothing to the lead.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Election to the Football League: This usage of the word "Fortuitously" could be perceived as POV. To save it, you could try adding "for the club" or similar after it, to imply that it wasn't fortunate in general (it certainly doesn't seem fortunate for Stoke). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
good point/tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First European triumph: A word is missing in "A month later Spurs won their consecutive FA Cup...".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terry Venables (1987–1993): This is quite repetitive around the comma: "and new signings by Venables Terry Fenwick and Paul Walsh failed to lift the team, the team only managing...".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the" is needed before "opening game" in the following paragraph.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were second from bottom...". Was "There" supposed to be "They"? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: do you have any more to add? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I'm a little concerned that we are heading towards this FAC being open for 6 weeks, and we have a lot of text here but still no real consensus that it meets the FA criteria. I'm going to add this to the urgent list, but I'm a little concerned that the wall of text might put off any new reviewers. It might be worth the nominators pinging those who have commented earlier to see if they have anything further to add, or this could be in danger of archiving. Sarastro (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has gone quiet. Am pinging now. Dweller posted that he wanted an independent copyedit (which has occurred) and gave a (sort of) support if this had occurred. (He also doesn't edit much on weekends so might not be till Monday till he posts) Other comments look promising but I agree we need to sort this out. Have pinged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I gave some comments before, but had refrained from supporting because, like others, I wasn't thrilled with the state of the prose in general. It had tended to be on the wordy side, with some overly long sentences that were trying to say too much for their own good and the large amount of passive voice noted by Dweller above. While he may describe his own comment as "possibly unfair", I believe it was perfectly reasonable to state that a general copy-edit was needed for the article to meet FA standards, as I had similar feelings. Well, after the third-party copy-edit this now reads like an entirely different, much stronger article. Thanks to that good work, I now believe this meets the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that. I figured something like that was up and am relieved. I have not been on the nominating end of a football article before so a steep learning curve for us Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think there is enough support and commentary for promotion now. I'd just like to add to the praise for the copy edit that pushed us over the line by Eric Corbett. One final point for the nominators to consider after promotion: the duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few, although some may be justified by the length of the article. This tool will highlight any duplication, and I leave it to the main editors to decide which need to be kept. Sarastro (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2019 (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_Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C./archive1&oldid=880045609"