Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Linfield F.C.

This article is concise, interesting and NPOV, it is enlightening and novel.Starsweep 11:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Object - it's a bit brief, and lacks any citations whatsoever. The prose needs cleaning up in a few places, the squad list looks strange with all those question marks in (how hard would it be to find out the missing player numbers?), and there's a lot of ambiguity in the "Biggest club in Ireland" section (does it mean the entirety of Ireland, or just Northern Ireland?), a section that also desperately needs citations and verification of the claim it makes. Even if some of these problems were addressed, however, I'm not sure it's FA material due to its brevity - however, if the citations and prose (and amount of redlinks) were sorted, I'd say it might have a decent shout at being a GA instead. Seb Patrick 12:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Support - Its brevity is a plus point, the reason being that so many FA's are arduously long, it is my view that one of reasonable brevity should make the grade and for this the Linfield F.C. article fits the bill. It's a very intersting article and should be seriously considered and not just brushed aside because in one person's view it lacks the odd citation. Starsweep 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't just lack "the odd" citation, though - it doesn't have any, nor are there any references. That's not my "view", it's a simple fact. And unfortunately, these are now prerequisites for a featured article - please see the criteria for more information. Seb Patrick 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Object This article is definitely not of featured quality. It lacks any photos (a simple photo of the stadium should be relatively easy to find or take), and has no references whatsoever. A large number of statements definitely need support from sources. And while brevity in itself is not a concern, incomprehensiveness is. The article has a "notable players" section, but none of them are mentioned in the article itself. The "History" section leaves enormous gaps (while there is extesive attention for the most recent season), as does the "European record" section. Other parts could use some elaboration and a part about past managers (either a section or integrated) is missing. The section "Biggest club in Ireland" is wrongly titled (except for the first paragraph). The links section has mostly links about Irish football in general, and the See also section features articles already linked from the article itself. Jeronimo 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Object, main reasons are (a) no citations or references at all, (b) large gaps in history section, (c) too much current history in relation to the other info, (d) some sections are too short, (e) strange squad section, (f) a lot more... A suggestion is to take a look at the currently featured football club articles in Wikipedia; Arsenal F.C., Manchester City F.C. and IFK Göteborg, to get some ideas what it takes to get to the FA status. – Elisson • Talk 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. Some reasons include:
- ~~Has not been submitted to peer review.~~
  - this is not a requirement for becoming a FA, AFAIK Jeronimo 10:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    - True, so I've combined it with the objection below. Qwghlm 22:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Lots of copyedits needed for writing style & formatting. The prose needs improvement and could do with a peer review first.
- Club history is nowhere near comprehensive, too present-oriented.
- Famous ex-players mostly redlinks; no criteria given for inclusion.
- "See also" section not at all necessary.
- Needs to cite sources and provide references. Qwghlm 00:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and the article also lacks images (aside from the club logo). Qwghlm 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)