Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Stoke City F.C.

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 14:14, 17 September 2007.

History of Stoke City F.C. edit

I wrote this article a few months back and brought it to GA standard. I have since improved the article based on some suggestions by The Rambling Man and I now believe it is up to FA standard. Dave101→talk  14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There are numerous MOS problems. I left sample edits of items that need to be fixed throughout in WP:MOSBOLD, WP:DASH, WP:MOSNUM, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I have now amended the article in line with the MOS, I think I have covered all the issues raised. Dave101→talk  16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The cite news template needs using for the BBC references, and all those with dates, I think. I'll help out with this. Mattythewhite 18:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used cite web merely for consistency, is cite news definitely required for news articles?
Yes, see here. Mattythewhite 11:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the appropriate references to cite news. Dave101→talk  12:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use of cite templates is not a requirement of WP:WIAFA, or a requirement for any other article. Consistently-formatted citations is the only requirment of WP:WIAFA; the method is irrelevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose My objection is primarily due to fair use images. Seven fair-use images is excessive, particularly as two of them could easily be replaced with free ones - it would be trivial for a local Wikipedian to take a photograph of the Britannia Stadium, and Stoke-on-Trent has two separate statues of Stanley Matthews.
  • I've removed the image of the Britannia Stadium and the images of Eastham and Matthews; I do agree, 7 was a bit excessive.
I found an image of the Britannia Stadium on Commons. It's not great, but it is free-use. I'd prefer fair use images to be kept to an absolute minimum, but I'll leave judgement on whether or not four is still too many to others. One possibility for an alternative image is using a very old photo - some early club photos may be out of copyright by now. Oldelpaso 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an image with expired copyright of the squad in place of the Victoria Ground image. I've also removed the image of Freddie Steele, which brings the fair use images down to 2. Dave101→talk  08:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comments:
    • The Football League Trophy is not generally regarded as a major trophy as the lead implies. The competition went under different names when Stoke won it, so Football League Trophy is something of an anachronism, perhaps Associate Members Cup would be better.
  •  Done I've changed the name of the Cup reworded this a bit, also mentioned which teams compete for this Cup in the lead. I've added the name cup went under each time Stoke won it in the prose.
    • pupils of Charterhouse School formed a football club while apprentices at the North Staffordshire Railway works Should this read "former pupils"? It seems unlikely that they were school pupils and railway apprentices simultaneously.
  •  Done The source states "former pupils", so I've changed this.
    • There is quite a bit of redundant phrasing in the prose e.g. At this period in time, the only fixtures were friendly matches... Stoke became of the twelve founding members of the Football League when it was introduced in 1888.

 Done I've had a go at removing some of this, hopefully it reads better now.

While there's still some there, most of it has gone, and I'll tackle the remainder myself. Oldelpaso 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a minor concern about over-reliance on the Stoke City website, which is cited on 40-odd occasions. A quick search at a certain well-known online bookseller reveals a large number of titles about the club, yet books account for only one citation.

Oldelpaso 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will add further references from A-Z of Stoke City tomorrow, unfortunately I do not have any other Stoke City books to hand.

 Done Added 25 or so book references.

If the book is anything like most others from the same publisher, it will be pretty definitive, so I've struck that one. Oldelpaso 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left responses to the above comments. Dave101→talk  21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further responses. Dave101→talk  09:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for being a pest, but I've spotted some more:
    • Durban was unable to keep the club up, as defeat on the final day of the season consigned Stoke to relegation from Division One. Technically true, but Stoke would have needed to win by something like twenty goals to survive, so different wording could be better.
    • The club decided to enter the FA Cup for the first time in the 1883–84 season, the competition itself had only been founded three years earlier. Something is wrong here. The FA Cup started in 1872.
    • The 1970s also saw Stoke compete at European Level for the only time in its history... This is contradicted by the rest of the paragraph, which details two European campaigns. Oldelpaso 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've corrected the above examples. Dave101→talk  17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support following copyedit. Oldelpaso 19:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose'—1a. Better. Here are examples from the top of why a good run-through by a copy-editor is required. It's worth supporting once that is done.
    • "the" is missing from the opening sentence.
    • Switch the first two sentences. MOS gives latitude not to have to slavishly bold the title in the very first sentence. You now don't have to sprinkle bold through the opening in all of the alternative names. Would look better just once.
    • Don't start a sentence with "Also". Why not "In the same year, ..."?
    • "in front of a crowd"—not wrong, but smoother as "before a crowd".
    • "record-low tally", but "first ever goal"? Could go either way, but not both.
    • "at the Victoria Cricket Ground, however they" ... "were friendly matches, however this changed"—One I could cope with, but not two in a row. Better, anyway, as "were friendly matches; however, this changed".
    • "Stoke won the new competition at the first time of asking, establishing themselves as the largest club in the area in the process." Spot the three redundant words.
    • "which ultimately led to the club losing its Football League status"—ungrammatical. Make it: "which ultimately led to the loss of the club's Football League status".
    • "The club's stay in Third Division North was brief; with the championship won at the first time of asking." Semicolon --> comma. Second time I've seen "of asking" (bit odd). Tony 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article a thorough copy-edit. I've also put in a request at the League of Copyeditors WikiProject. Dave101→talk  15:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been copy-edited by Cricketgirl. Dave101→talk  16:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, incomplete citation, pls check and fix all of them (publisher, etc?):
  • England 1997-98. Retrieved on August 10, 2007.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good spot. I've gone and double checked all references and I think all are now complete. Dave101→talk  10:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The convention is not to use a double period when a dotted abbreviation comes last in a sentence. Tony 14:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've corrected all cases of this in the article now. Dave101→talk  15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - just run through it, sorry it's a bit late. I've copy-edited bits of the artile slightly, you may wish to refine what I've done but I've tried to cut out some redundant phrasing and repetition. Here are my suggestions:
  • Firstly, and most significantly, you need to sort out whether you're using F.C. after a club's name or not. It's a mix at present. I'd say that as you've established Stoke City is a football club, you don't need to mention that all the teams they play are football clubs too. Also, sometimes when another club is mentioned twice you link their names both times, and sometimes you only link it once.

 Done I've removed from all club's bar Stoke City in the lead. I've also removed all links from clubs that have been already elsewhere in the article.

  • "In 1925, Stoke-on-Trent was granted city status and this led the club to change its name for the final time to Stoke City Football Club in 1928.[15]" I'm not sure you need "the final time" there, it's a bit redundant considering the title of the article.

 Done "The final time" removed.

  • You don't mention any managers until Tom Mather. Looking at his predecessors, there were some long-lasting ones. Why aren't they mentioned. On a related note "Bob McGrory resigned as the club's manager in February 1952 after 17 years in the role; he had previously played for the club for 14 years.[29]" The italicised bit could either be put in a bit about McGrory's appointment, but it feels tacked on there.

 DoneI've added information significant managers prior to Mather, plus more info on Mather and McGrory. Dave101→talk  11:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Crowds were falling, with the average attendance dropping below 10,000 for the first time in 40 years.[16][28]" I think this bit of information would be better if moved to the Waddington section, attached to the Taylor summary of 5 years it's unclear as to when the attendance dropped below 10,000 - I presume around 1960.
 Done Added to the start of the Waddington section, the source states "by 1960", so I've rephrased it as "By 1960 Stoke were struggling to attract supporters to the Victoria Ground, with the average attendance dropping below 10,000 for the first time in 40 years."
  • "These matches included Gordon Banks' penalty save from Geoff Hurst in the second leg at Upton Park." Why is that important?
 Done Removed, I agree it probably isn't worth mentioning. Dave101→talk  21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did Stoke qualify for the European competitons they played in in the 70s? It's not clear.
  •  DoneI've added information on how Stoke qualified on both occasions. Dave101→talk  11:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He signed Mickey Thomas from Brighton and Hove Albion F.C.[58] and Mark Chamberlain from Port Vale,[59]" Why are these particular signings important, the decision to mention them seems a bit arbitrary.
 Done I've added a brief bit on info on both signings. I've mentioned their transfer fees and Chamberlain's England caps. Dave101→talk 
  • "His first task was to consolidate following the club's relegation in the previous season, which he achieved with a mid-table finish in the Second Division.[55]"
  • Why did Chic Bates leave? What was the situation at the time?

 Done I've added information on his departure. Dave101→talk  21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, though. With a few adjustments it's easily FA class. HornetMike 15:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copy-edit and your comments, I'll address these over the next day or two. Dave101→talk  17:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
  • Refs 9 and 10 are duplicates.
These link to two articles on different seasons. Dave101→talk  19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, my eyes must have blurred :) J.Winklethorpe talk 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, there look to be a lot of double refs, such as "Stoke became one of the twelve founding members of the Football League in 1888.[7][8]", where the refs both give the same information. I'd say a single ref was fine for an uncontroversial statement. "1997–98 saw Stoke move to its new ground, the 28,000 all-seater Britannia Stadium,[76][77][78]" probably doesn't need three.
I've removed some of the refs that produce duplicate information. I'll take a more detailed look tomorrow. Dave101→talk  19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with this now. In general I've left two refs for the same statement when one is print and the other is internet, or they both provide different information. Dave101→talk  09:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with double refs where there are two pieces of information that need linking in; I don't think double refs are necessary simply to back up a print citation with a web source. However, I don't believe the MOS is explicit on this anywhere, so i shall leave it to your preference. J.Winklethorpe talk 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything to be said about league results between winning in 1877 to joining the Football league in 1888?
  • There were no league games as far as I know prior to the formation of the Football League. I will provide more information on the County Cup and FA Cup games played in this period. Dave101→talk  19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I meant to refer to the county cup games then - so yes, just something to fill what's otherwise a gap would be good, even if it's a report of "They played; they won nothing". That said, unless the county cup was a very long competition, they can't have had much to do for several years. If any information exists on the impetus for going professional, that would be interesting. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see if I can find more on the reason for turning professional, originally all I found was "the club turned professional in ....". Dave101→talk  22:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've added information the club's second County Cup win and information on the club entering two other cups (Birmingham Association Cup and Staffordshire Senior Cup). I've added a bit more to the club's reason for turning professional, as the FA legalised it shortly before the club turned professional. Dave101→talk  09:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. J.Winklethorpe talk 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.Winklethorpe talk 19:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I'll address these shortly. Dave101→talk  22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed all the broken links to the Stoke City website, hopefully they won't move the content again for a while! Dave101→talk  20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Following the resumption of the FA Cup, tragedy struck as 33 fans died and 520 were injured during a sixth round away game against Bolton Wanderers when the crush barriers gave way on the terraces". "Tragedy is a POV word.--Carabinieri 00:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Removed POV word. Dave101→talk  08:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Not keen on the capitalisation of History in the second sentence, just for the sake of using the title of the article.
    • Removed capitalistation.
  • "The club joined the Football League upon its formation in 1888, making them the second oldest club in the League." - if they joined upon formation why aren't the first equal oldest club? It's a little confusing for me.
    • It's based on the club's founding date. I could phrase it as the "second oldest Football League club", would this be any better?
      • Yeah, I get it on a second read. Your suggestion works for me. The Rambling Man 17:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've gone for "...second oldest club in the Football League."
  • You wikilink "2–1 in the final", I'd just link "final".
    • "Final" linked only now.
  • (a Cup competition for clubs in the two lower divisions of The Football League)" - don't like parenthesised text.
    • I've put it in emdashes now, although I'm not sure if this is any better. Should I just remove this part altogether?
  • just curious really) "Played against an E.W. May XV..." was it 15-a-side?
    • Yes, it was. I've added the fact it was 15-a-side to the article.
  • Ref [4] not placed according to WP:CITE.
    • I've placed it after "Sweetings Field", is this correct?
  • "In the 1882–1883, Stoke..." word missing?
    • Corrected typo.
  • I'd prefer a consistent season wikilink, so either "1885-86 season" or just "1885-86" throughout.
    • I've phrased it as the ".... season" throughout now, apart from when it is obvious a season is being talked about e.g. "In the following two seasons, 1947–48 and 1948–49,"
  • More disappointment ..." purists would suggest this is POV.
    • I've removed this, hopefully the article is bias free now!
  • Full stop missing before Ref [20] and the second instance of [21]. And a space missing after [25]?
    • Fixed ref placements.
  • "— as champions —" - why the em-dashes, why not just plain prose?
    • Plain prose now.
  • "The 1950s did not start well;..." I would add "...for Stoke" or "...for the club"
    • Added "for the club".
  • "Durban achieved promotion to the First Division in his first full season, 1978–79, on the last day of the season.[48]" - two "season"s in one sentence reads a bit clumsy.
    • Rephrased as "Durban achieved promotion to the First Division in his first full season, 1978–79, with a third place finish". The last day of the season part isn't really worth mentioning, in hindsight.
  • "Ball struggled in his first season in charge, 1989–90, and his Stoke side were relegated to the third tier of English football after finishing bottom of the Second Division.[79] It was the first time Stoke had played in the Third Division in 63 years." - they didn't play in the third division until the following season if you get my drift, tenses are a bit wonky.
    • New sentence: "Starting the 1990–91 season in the Third Division, it was the first time Stoke had played at this level in 63 years."
Hope they help... I think the article is in very good nick despite these, but I'd like to see them dealt with (or at least responded to!) before I add my support. Cheers! The Rambling Man 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses added, thanks as ever for your comments TRM! Dave101→talk  17:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work. The Rambling Man 08:30, 13 September 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/History_of_Stoke_City_F.C.&oldid=1078800954"