Wikipedia:Peer review/F.C. United of Manchester/archive3

F.C. United of Manchester

Previous peer review

I'm listing this article for peer review as I'm hoping to bring it to Featured Article status in the coming weeks and months as part of a wider effort to improve F.C. United-related articles on Wikipedia. This article was last peer reviewed in March 2012, over four years ago, and has since been updated and improved quite significantly, including splitting a section of the article into List of F.C. United of Manchester seasons (a current featured list candidate).

I'm requesting that this article be peer reviewed as both myself and Delusion23, with whom I have been working on improving the article, have edited it too many a time to be able to look at it with a fresh eye. All suggestions and improvements are warmly welcomed, in particular regarding the flow of the text as well as grammar, as I realise there had been a few problems regarding this aspect in the past.

Thanks so much for your help, odder (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Lemonade51 – Think the prose could be tightened up, some suggestions:

• It's worth having a look at similar articles which are of the standard you wish to attain. Liverpool F.C. is quite a good example as it was promoted fairly recently, have a look at its nomination.
• The lead does a good job of summarising the club. I'd like to think given the manner in which the club was founded, maybe a sentence could be added about criticism?
  • I've been thinking about this the last few days, and I have to say that I feel deeply uneasy about it. I actually went on to read a couple of already existing FA articles on English football clubs, and none of them mention criticism in their respective leads. Of course, F.C. United are in a unique situation—a group of fans starting a new club with their old club still existing, and in the Premier League at that—and there is no other club to compare it to, but I feel it's a bit much to have the club's criticism mentioned in the lead. I'm pinging @Delusion23 to see his thoughts on this. odder (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I feel that the criticism section definitely needs expansion, but to mention it in the lead may be difficult. Then again, we both have a little COI as fans of the club in question, while trying to remain impartial. Something along the lines that the breakaway was controversial, causing somewhat of a split in the United fanbase? Guess we should follow the precedent of other club featured articles. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• "The club was promoted to the National League North in 2015 ... The club also reached the second round of the FA Cup in the 2010–11 season and the fourth round of the FA Trophy in the 2014–15 season," repetition, state the club's name in the second sentence. What is the significance of reaching the second round of the FA Cup? And likewise fourth round of the FA Trophy? I'd imagine it was the furthest they've been in both competitions? If so, include that somewhere.
  • I've reworded this a bit just now, avoiding that repetition, but I'm not sure if it looks any better. odder (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• "The club's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015 ready for the 2015–16 season." comma before 2015. Remove wikilink for Broadhurst Park, it's already been linked in the first paragraph.
  • This is now  Done. odder (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Under formation, "F.C. United" continues to be used as an abbreviated form of the club's name," source for this?
  • I don't think it can be backed up by a reference, so I removed that sentence, and am marking this as  Done odder (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• "Karl Marginson was appointed as the club's manager on 22 June 2005, and the club held trials for players on 26 June 2005", replace with four days later
  •  Done, too. odder (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• "During their formation, the owners of Leigh RMI asked F.C. United to take over their club, but United refused the takeover offer as they believed that taking over an existing club would be hypocritical, given that F.C. United was formed as a result of Manchester United's takeover," this whole sentence reads long-winded, and could easily be chopped down into two sentences. There are four instances of 'take over', change it up to avoid repetition.
  • Thanks,  Done, I reworded the sentence. odder (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Looking further down, the criticism section could certainly be beefed up. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • This is so weird as I've got this page on my watchlist and yet received no e-mail notification about your comments, @Lemonade51. Many thanks for looking over the article — I'll try to fix the issues you've mentioned, either tomorrow night or on Tuesday and will report back here. And thank you for providing a great example in Liverpool F.C., I'll have a look at it and will try to get this article to a similar level. odder (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm hoping to be able to expand the criticism section over the weekend, so please stay tuned. odder (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
      • @Lemonade51, @Delusion23: I have now expanded the criticism section considerably; does this address your concerns? odder (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Some more comments @Odder: @Delusion23:........

• Looking at other FA football articles, do you think it's necessary to break down the history section with subheadings? It may lead to WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM issues, if there isn't any already.
  • I personally don't think it's a problem—to me those subheadings add some order to the article—but I'll see what can be done about this. odder (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• "United refused the offer as they believed that taking over an existing club would be hypocritical, given that F.C. United were formed as a result of Manchester United's acquisition by Malcolm Glazer" → "...given the manner which F.C. United were formed," straight to the point, how the club was formed has already been mentioned.
  •  Done as suggested. odder (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• "putting the club at level ten of the English football league system," how about 'placing' as 'putting' feels informal?
  •  Done; it does indeed. Changed to "placing." odder (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• "The club then arranged to play its home matches at Bury F.C.'s Gigg Lane," wikilink Bury and the stadium. Think you could drop F.C. for consistency reasons.
  •  Done; I actually removed the link in one of the previous edits, but added it back now. I realize that after my recent expansion of the club's early history, the links are higher up the page than they were before, so it won't hurt to have them . odder (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• "During their first season, F.C. United consistently broke NWCFL attendance records, including an attendance of 6,032 during their final home league match of the season on 22 April 2006, which is still an NWCFL record" → reads clunky, how about something like, "During their first season, F.C. United consistently broke NWCFL attendance records; a crowd of 6,032 watched the team in their final home league match of the season, which remains an NWCFL record as of 2016," you need a source to confirm the 'as of' bit.
  •  Done: reworded as suggested and added a reference to NWCFL's own history page. odder (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• "Despite losing the match 0–1 to Great Harwood Town," → "Despite losing that game 0–1 to Great Harwood Town," nothing grammatically wrong with your original sentence, maybe just links better when the above point is modified.
  •  Done — using the word "game" instead of "match" actually helps to avoid a repetition, so thanks :-) odder (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• "After a successful season in the NWCFL Division One, F.C. United were promoted to the Northern Premier League Division One North on 7 April 2007," exact date isn't really important. Month and year would suffice.
  • Haven't done that yet as I'm planning to work on the history section as a whole tomorrow; see below. odder (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• "They were confirmed as champions on 18 April 2007 after beating Atherton Laburnum Rovers 7–1 at Gigg Lane" move bit in bold to end of sentence.
  •  Done odder (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• "They also won the NWCFL's Challenge Cup, beating Curzon Ashton 2–1 in the final, becoming only the third side to complete the NWCFL league and cup double," could be tighter → "F.C. United later became the third side to complete the NWCFL league and cup double when they beat Curzon Ashton 2–1 in the NWCFL's Challenge Cup final"
  •  Done, reworded as suggested, thanks. odder (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• "They were eliminated from their first season in an FA competition (the FA Vase) at the third round stage by Quorn," third-round is hypenated here
  •  Done odder (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• "In the 2007–08 season, F.C. United played in the inaugural year season of the Northern Premier League Division One North."
  • This has been  Done, too. odder (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The prose is sufficient in the 'History' section, but it's very 'In XXXX-XX season, they won the cup. Then in XXXX-XX, they lost the cup'. Almost like a rigid, season-by-season account. For the FA criteria, certainly now, the prose should ideally be as engaging as the subject permits it to be. Think you've got all the essential bits, it's just (certainly with 'History') needing to tighten up the prose and being more selective with what games to include. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for all these comments, @Lemonade51, they're super helpful. I will be doing some heavy editing on the article tomorrow—there's still some information to be added about the club's formation as well regarding its organisation—and so I'll try to improve the history section too. Haven't had time to do it yet due to real life pressures, but I'll have some free time tomorrow; I'll come back to this page after I'm done. odder (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Lemonade51: I've now removed a lot of (unnecessary) detail about some of the matches played between 2007-2015, as per WP:RECENTISM. This part of the article now focuses mostly on club's best results (the 2010-11 FA Cup run, the 2014-15 FA Trophy run, play-off results) and its firsts (FA Vase run, FA Cup run, FA Trophy run). It's shortened the history section considerably, which in turn, I think, improved the flow of the text. What do you think? Are there any specific areas which you think I can improve further? odder (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Lemonade51: Just pinging you here as I think you might not have noticed this. I've re-read the article yet again, and can't see any more issues that need to be fixed — have you got any ideas and suggestions? Thanks, odder (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Odder:, sorry for the delay, been quite busy this week so I haven't had time to much peer reviewing as I would like to. Had a quick glance and reads much better now. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
      • @Lemonade51: Thanks! Would you mind if I closed this discussion and proceeded with a FA nomination, as originally planned? odder (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
        • No objections. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• I'll offer come comments soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The prose is generally okay - I just had a couple of comprehensiveness queries first off:

• Any further info we can elaborate on how the club formed - whose idea it was and how it gained traction. The section is a bit brief and could do with some more - this is one of the fascinating aspects at how this whole club came about.

• Also, any info on particlarly good player performances and how they held the team together, or signings etc. would be good to sprinkle through the history to give it some colour.

A nice read though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reading through the article, @Casliber, and for your valuable suggestions. I'll try to expand the early history of the club and, as you said, "add some colour" to the history section over the next 48 hours, or at the latest 72 (late evening UTC on Thursday). I'll post on this page once I'm done; thanks again :-) odder (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi again @Cas; I've now expanded the early days of F.C. United; do you think this is comprehensive enough? There's a lot more detail available (such as names of places where all the meetings were held), however I thought it'd be too much for an encyclopedia article. I'll see what I can do regarding those notable player performances. odder (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That's more like it - I guess just getting a flavour of how it all happened. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cas Liber: Thanks. The history section has been shortened in the meanwhile, and while it doesn't list too many significant player performances, it lists three: one by the club's record goalscorer Rory Patterson in the very first home match in 2005-06, one when Mike Norton scored the historic winner to get the club into the second round of the FA, and the record performance by Simon Carden when he scored 5 goals in the 10-2 win against Castleton Gabriels (now renamed to Rochdale Town F.C.). I understand that most football club FAs mention the names of their most (and least) successful managers, however this isn't possible to do with regards to F.C. United as the team have only had one manager since their formation. odder (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)