Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sheffield Wednesday F.C./archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 14:16, 28 June 2011 [1].

Sheffield Wednesday F.C.[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Keith D, Mattythewhite, JeremyA, WikiProject Sheffield Wednesday, WikiProject Sheffield, WikiProject Football

This nearly five-year-old FA no longer meets the criteria. The main problem is that the article is that it is largely unreferenced (1c), bare links in the ref and even some links which lack clickable urls. Books used as ref lack page numbers, and the use of unreliable sources (for instance [2], plus some I am uncertain about). Also the prose is clearly below (1a) standards, and is in dire need of a copy edit. For instance, there are sentences missing periods, long sentences not approprirately broken up with commas or semicolons, sentences starting with digists, incorrect use of italics, single-sentence paragraphs, incorrect capitalization (for instance "Ozzie The Owl" and "Owl" as a common noun mid-sentence), forcing of image size without due reason, two disambig links and repeat links, to mention some. If work is stared both with referencing and copy-editing, I can produce a more detailed and systematic list, but as the article stands now, I fear it needs a complete re-write. Arsenikk (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the notification to WikiProject Yorkshire Keith D (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original FA promotion of this article was mainly due to the work of Joshurtree (talk · contribs). He hasn't edited in over two years, and it doesn't look like we have anyone currently editing with his level of interest in this article, so I suspect that it is unlikely to be back to FA quality any time soon.—Jeremy (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC – Just on referencing alone, the article is nowhere close to modern FA standards. Numerous sections have either zero or minimal cites, the formatting of some references leaves much to be desired, and a few are of questionable reliability (I noticed a personal Tripod page and an IMDB ref, among others). I hadn't been intending to look at the writing after seeing this, but this doozy from where the IMDB cite was cannot go unmentioned: "Comedy actor and writer Michael Palin ;[38];,". This level of over-punctuation is terrible for any article, let alone an FA. What's more, this is part of a paragraph that is basically a carelessly written list. If this is any indication, the prose may be too far gone to save even if sufficient referencing is added. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think FARC is premature, at this point - but I also agree that there's a lot to do before this article can be kept as an FA. I'll take a crack at it later today, see where we are. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing, prose and MOS. Dana boomer (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist most, if not all, of my initial comments have not been seen to at all. There has been no significant work done on the article in a month. Even if work started, it would probably have to be completely rewritten from scratch, including reference research, to get up to FA standards. Arsenikk (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – A couple of the specific issues I brought up have been addressed, but the major ones (lack of referencing/poor formatting and the need for a full copy-edit or two) remain. Don't think this should remain featured in this state. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The article is too far gone. Lack of sourcing and poor formatting is the main problem. I thought Sheffield Wednesday had a WikiProject of its own, but I assume it's pretty much dead since nothing has really been addressed. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Agree with the concerns per Arsenikk (talk · contribs), Giants2008 (talk · contribs) and Argyle 4 Life (talk · contribs). Above issues have not been dealt with. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:24, 23 June 2011 (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_review/Sheffield_Wednesday_F.C./archive1&oldid=1138477761"