Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ipswich Town F.C.

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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Ipswich Town F.C.[edit]

This article has undergone a significant improvement drive recently and has been improved in a number of areas. Several images have been added, all claims have citations, the recentism that afflicts most football club articles has been eradicated and all-in-all I think we have a very good shout for elevation to featured status. The Rambling Man 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (of course). (As a contributor, I declare a COI) --Dweller 19:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looking at the title of this article and the Central Coast Mariners FC article below, I think there should be some consistency in how the FC / F.C. is displayed. Has there been any discussion on which is preferred so that one can change? Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know sheer weight of numbers isn't always the de facto guide to the right answer, but the Mariners article is the only one which says FC and not F.C. After all, F.C. is an acronym for Football Club so ought to be punctuated correctly. But that's just my opinion. Despite the FC vs F.C. issue, what do you think of the article? The Rambling Man 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most football club articles are at F.C. There was some weight behind the idea of changing them all to FC (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive6#F.C._or_FC.3F), but it didn't get off the ground. Could be worth a bot request at some point though. Oldelpaso 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Traditionally, Australian clubs have used "FC". CCMFC legally recognise themselves as FC (see this), and basically every reference made to CCM using the full name (FC/F.C. included), which is rare, uses the non-dots version. If Ipswich is F.C., the Mariners isn't changing because FC is more common. There is no real need for consistancy because they are basically unrelated (country, league etc.), and regardless, judge both articles on their merits, not their names. Daniel Bryant 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm down, I wasn't judging the articles at all. It just seemed a bit odd that one article was using punctuation and the other wasn't. I thought it was just a consistency issue between our articles, not that some clubs used it 'officially' while others didn't. darkliight[πalk] 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies if I came across abrash or incivilly - it wasn't my intention. This is an issue that, sadly, I feel relatively strongly about on Wikipedia. Sorry again, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem at all. darkliight[πalk] 10:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good article. Could perhaps do with a sentence or two more about the imoprtant Robson period, Arnold Muhren, Frans Thyssen - the first real European stars of the English game - famously beating Man Utd 6-0 in 1980(?). It is overshadowed presently by the unremarkable Llyall period. Then I'd support.-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Oh, and support, my second-favourite team in English football is done justice by this article. Daniel Bryant 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Despite it being very good already, I have given it a very light copyedit. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelas10's support[edit]

  • Comments Support. The peer review pretty much covered it all. A few comments of my own; remove all the fan sites from the external links section as only reliable sources need to be included per WP:EL. Second reference lacks parameters. ...enjoyed brief success - Grammar. ...just two years - POV. Image:Ipswich Town badge.gif and Image:Old ITFC Crest.gif lack a fair use rationale. "In popular culture" sections have the lowest priority, thus needs to be added right before the "References" section. Sentence captions should all end with a period per WP:MOS. The #64 reference is a note, please separate it using {{note}} to avoid confusion. ...The Blues, Town or The Tractor Boys - Serial comma. What are the purple/yellow/light blue lines in Image:ITFC record.png? A color map should be made at the caption or at least the image description page. ...resigned in May 1987, after reaching the promotion play-offs - Unnecessary comma. As of March 13, 2007 - Keep the date formatting constant. ...but worse was to follow - The sentence isn't an opposition of the previous. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the detailed response. I'll take the comments to the article talk page and work on them in detail there. --Dweller 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of Michaelas10's comments have been actioned or rebutted at the article talk page, with one exception to-date:

I have no experience of fair-use rationale and would welcome assistance. --Dweller 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them myself. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. All done for this set of comments then. Thank you Michaelas10 - the article's considerably improved as a result. --Dweller 14:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso's support[edit]

  • <Conditional support As youth players are not generally notable enough to have their own article, the list of youth players should not be included. Other than that, its all good. Oldelpaso 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's just been raised at the article talk page. I've removed the section. --Dweller 12:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Opposes "fierce rivalry with East Anglian rivals Norwich City, their nearest neighbours to the north in Norfolk, with whom they have contested the East Anglian Derby 134 times since 1902" needs to sourced. If there is a source for this somewhere eles in the article as I've been informed this shouldn't be too difficult. Buc 12:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As already discussed on our talk pages, this statement is in the Lead section, which briefly states the main points covered in the article. The article gives sourced data on this issue (and all the other claims in the Lead section, now you mention it). There seems to be consensus that there's no need to cite the information twice and a casual glance through WP:FA shows this is a common (though not the only) way to approach the lead section. --Dweller 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no piont giving the same information twice. Remove it from the lead if it's mentioned later then. Buc 12:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way articles work Buc. The lead summarises the main points of the body. As the rivalry is a main point, then it goes in the lead and is elaborated the body.-- Zleitzen(talk) 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is written in the same style as a number of other featured articles, and I can't see how it fails WP:LEAD. It is allowable to mention points in the lead and then elaborate in the body, it is, however, unacceptable to introduce new ideas in the lead. But thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man 16:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support The honours section should clarify that "runners-up" means league runners-up. The paragraph beginning "Robson left..." and ending "...award for Burley" can be split into two to make it uniform with the rest of the section. Other than that, a good article. SteveO 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Honours section clarified as suggested, thanks. The Rambling Man 16:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Para split as suggested The Rambling Man 16:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all issues resolved, fantastic article. Excellent work by Dweller and The Rambling Man. HornetMike 13:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1's objection[edit]

Oppose - 1a. The prose needs cleaning up throughout. Here are random examples:

  • "The club was founded in 1878 but they did not play as a professional club until 1936" - Remove "they".
  • "The club won the league three further times, in 1929–30, 1932–33 and 1933–34" - "three further times" is clumsy; why not remove it altogether?
  • "The club was immediately relegated the following season" - Relegated to what?
  • "Major success came with Ipswich Town's only FA Cup trophy in 1978, beating Arsenal in the final at Wembley Stadium" - what, the trophy beat Arsenal?
  • En dashes are used throughout, so why not for scores, such as "6–0"?
  • Audit use of commas, for example "A poor start to the season, culminating in a 2-0 defeat at Grimsby Town meant that Burley was ..." - Where's the second comma enclosing the nested phrase?

Please don't just fix these examples. Tony 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on Tony1's talk page and will take these concerns to the article talk page to deal with in detail. --Dweller 09:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of these concerns have now been addressed, bar "Please don't just fix these examples". --Dweller 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very good article, matches the criteria. Bigmike 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ipswich_Town_F.C.&oldid=1079086910"