Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chelsea F.C./archive1

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 kept by User:Marskell 12:11, 13 October 2008 [1].

Chelsea F.C. edit

Notified WikiProject Football. Marskell (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article shouldn't be neither a featured one nor a good one because: the history section suffers of recentism, the lead section is too short, the crest section has a non-free image gallery, and so on. Hadrianos1990 (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the archive, this passed FAC way too easily. But I'm not really surprised since it really is happening way too often, based on popularity etc. Anyway, I'm amongst the biggest supporters of Chelsea, but this article is indeed poory structured. The lead is way too short, and some other raised issues stand predominantly. I will do my brief best to fix up any issues, but I really can't promise anything. Domiy (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not liking the FAC is not a reason for removal, and assumes bad faith on the part of the reviewers. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify significant contributors and the FAC nominator of this FAR. User:SteveO does a lot of work on this article, for example. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR, using {{subst:FARMessage|Chelsea F.C.}}, to do the notifications and post them back to this FAR, as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing quickly at this article, I see some minor issues, not bad for an article promoted almost two years ago, but I wonder if we aren't seeing some pointy-ness going on in the Football nominations. Was there any attempt to resolve these concerns on the article talk page? Folks, there are some really old and out-of-compliance FAs out there, and clogging up FAR with articles that could be addressed via talk doesn't bode well. If this becomes a trend, we may need to alter FAR instructions to require prior attempts to work things out on talk before bringing articles that could easily be fixed to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sandy about this being in pretty good shape, but not that happy with the non-free gallery. Not sure five old logos are needed, not to mention a second use of the current one. The recentism issue is difficult because Chelsea have acheived most of their success since 1997. Naturally, the history section will be slanted toward this period. A little more on the club from before 1950 wouldn't hurt, though. As for the lead, some more on their history could be included. I said that for Real Madrid and it's only fair for me to repeat that here. But overall there have been many worse articles through here and I think with a little work this can be kept. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comments above, I've expanded the lead and tried to reduce the recentism in the history section. As for the images, my suggestion is to remove the two variants of the current crest and the 52-53 initials one, which would leave just the main three. It's possible that the 1905 and 1955 crests are out of copyright anyway. SteveO (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notifications still have not been done. Per the instrutions at the top of WP:FAR, pls notify with {{subst:FARMessage|Chelsea F.C.}} and post them back to here as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - History section and lead look absolutely fine to me, gallery of crests has gone, and what exactly does "and so on" cover? Looks a lot like a pointy nomination to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt this FAR was premature, but the non-free image gallery has been remove, [2], so I am happy. I would give this change a few days to settle as the consensus version before considering closing the review. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm not really that keen on the article's "History" section as it stands. There's currently about one paragraph for each of the last six decades (slightly less, actually, as the 70s and 80s seem to be sharing a paragraph), and the paragraphs get progressively longer as they approach more recent events. Even worse, there is a single paragraph that covers the entire period from the club's foundation in 1905 to the start of the 1950s! 45 years covered by one paragraph and then five whole paragraphs for the next 58 years? Reeks of WP:RECENT to me. You could argue that most of Chelsea's history has come in the last five years (and in terms of trophies, it has), but I'm sure there were plenty of noteworthy events that took place between 1905 and 1950 that could be expanded upon. If this was currently an FAC candidate, I would be in opposition. – Pee Jay 15:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't get comment after the first few days. Normally, it would go to FARC now but I am with the group that views this as premature and probably unnecessary. I don't see a huge issue wrt to recentism and the crests are gone. Keeping. Marskell (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.