Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester United F.C./archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manchester United F.C.[edit]

Support The article is very detailed, has many cited sources, and provides a great wealth of information about the football club.Ken20008 10:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object for a vast number of reasons, the most significant of which are:
    • Too few references - what referencing there is is too sporadic.
    • There are many bold claims that need referencing and statistics to back up: e.g. "a then-unheard of approach", "with an average age of only 22", "This style was unpopular with supporters", "was reportedly on the verge of being sacked", "Following the Munich air disaster in 1958, more people began to support United and many started to go to matches", and many more.
    • Only one free image in such a long article, and it's not a particularly good one at that.
    • History section far too recentist and littered with trivia - shorten this so that it gives a more balanced coverage. For example, sixty years elapsed between the club's foundation and the start of World War II, but only one sentence of the "History" section covers events during that time. The worst example is how the team's winning of an FA Cup, two league titles and a European Cup in the period 1963-68 gets one sentence, while the period 2004-06 when the team just won the League Cup gets a whole paragraph.
    • Coverage of Busby's time at the club is mistakenly included in the pre-1945 section as well as 1945-69.
    • Colours and sponsorship should be in a section of their own, not under History.
    • Reserve players should not be in the main club article.
    • No criteria given for inclusion in list of notable former players.
    • Player and club records should be divided off into a separate article (e.g. as Arsenal F.C. records has done) and just summarised here.
    • The endless listing of every physio, masseur, under-9's coach is not necessary and should be excised.
    • There really should be more, preferably a whole section, on the club's home stadiums - not just Old Trafford but its predecessors.
Basically, this article needs a lot of work - there are many more minor issues I have not listed here. Start by reading existing FAs such as IFK Goteborg, Arsenal and Manchester City and see how they've done it right. I note this article has not yet been submitted for peer review - I would strongly recommend doing so. It might even be worth submitting to WP:GAC as an intermediate step before resubmitting for FAC. It is definitely not featured-quality as it stands. Qwghlm 11:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Firstly references need to amass to around 30 at least for an article of that size. The structure of the article is also rather weak. Look at the Arsenal FC page and make changes to this one accordingly. For me that is the perfect example of a sporting team featured article. Get those right and you'll be laughing. --mdmanser 11:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per Qwghlm. HornetMike 11:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object there are much better articles out there. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 14:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Manchester_United_F.C./archive1&oldid=1143866307"