Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derry City F.C./archive1

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 not promoted 20:26, 7 May 2007.

[edit] Derry City F.C.

The article underwent a peer-review for the purpose of raising it to the standard of a featured article. I dealt with the issues raised in the review and, looking at the criteria for featured article status, feel that the article now comes very close to, if not satisfying them. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Okay I just gave it quick look over for MoS stuff, it looks solid. I made a couple of WP:UNITS, WP:DASH, and WP:DATE fixes. Full dates always get wikilinked, by that I mean they should appear like this when you edit them: [[22 August]] [[1972]] not like this: [[13 July]] 2001 as was in there previously, see here. This is important as it has to do with user preferences. Try to make sure I didn't miss any. Length is fine, summary style is employed, and it's only 33 kb of prose. Surprisingly all the dashes in the team's records and seasons are done correctly, don't see that too often in a sports article. A couple of the refs concern me though, #57 says it comes from the webmaster of a site and he's a Wikipedian (User:Niallc99), ref #s 69, and 81 link to youtube, #70 gives a link but explains that it's dead, and #78 is not formatted. Also, the reference section with the list of book sources normally goes directly below the footnotes not above it. That's it for structural stuff that I see, I'll read through it tomorrow. Quadzilla99 00:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have contacted the webmaster in question and hopefully he will be able to help out with the dead link. Is there a policy which allows users to insert what would otherwise be considered as original research if the are in a reputable and credible position to do so? Are links to YouTube prohibited? Just another thing regarding the footnotes; one of them (now #86) linked to a page that was updated yesterday/recently for the new series of The Panel by the looks of it. However, the information relevant to the article is still stored in Google's cache here. What would be the best thing to do about this, as I don't feel that the information will remain in place permanently? Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 12:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think I have fixed all instances where an em dash should be found. Hopefully, I haven't missed any. Is it OK to have a space before and after the dash, or should I remove these? The guide seems to imply that a dash without surrounding spaces is preferable but it does not indicate that it is an obligation to leave out the spaces. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the history section still seems to have a far too heavy bias on the past few years - there are five paragraphs dealing with history from 2000 onwards, compared with one brief paragraph in the Arsenal F.C. article for example. More comments to come... The Rambling Man 10:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comments

1. In general, for me the history section is a bit too lengthy, especially since there's a main article.
2. I think it needs to be a bit more neutral in tone in some areas e.g. "Despite the club's glories...", "Buoyed by the support of enthusiastic crowds flocking...", "...fondly remembered on the Brandywell terraces ..." should be made more NPOV.
3. Wikilink Wolves in the first instance.
4. No specific citations for the shirt manufacturers listed.
5. "...is, of course,..." not particularly encyclopaedic writing.
6. Inconsistent use of en-dash for all scorelines mentioned.

More to come... The Rambling Man 11:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Further comments

1. In general I would avoid using "of course..." throughout (above is just one instance of at least three), it's not encyclopaedic.
2. Appearance on "What happnened next?" on QoS seems un-noteworthy - hundreds of clubs could claim this.
3. Fair use images should all have rationale for use within this particular article according to the fair use policy para 10c. The Rambling Man 11:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have wikilinked the first mention of Wolves. I'll try and get working on the remainder of your points as quickly as possible. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 12:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have tried to 'neutralise' some of the text. I have also removed instances of 'of course', as well as ensuring that the use of the en-dash is consistent (I hope). The club's past sponsors and kit suppliers can be gathered throughout the book by Eddie Mahon. Will I include the book in a footnote at the end of that sentence or would I need a footnote for each sponsor and page in the book? Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 02:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Response you could cite the book (using the {{Cite book}} template at the end of the paragraph and add all the relevant pages in the template in one go. That'd be neatest. The Rambling Man 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Question Why is this article at WP:GAC and WP:FAC at the same time? Please pick one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to see the article gain 'featured article' status, so I'll go for that one. :) Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 12:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Object
  • Lead is far too long.
  • Image:Beckettbarca.jpg does not contain source information and looks like a professional press photograph, not one taken from the stands by a fan. Public domain tag is dubious to say the least.
  • Image:Brandywell.jpg no proof of copyright owner's consent to GFDL licence. Originating page maintains "all rights reserved".
  • Image:Derrycity2.jpg no proof of copyright owner's consent to GFDL licence.
  • Image:Dcfcsquad.JPG no proof of copyright owner's consent to GFDL licence.
  • As a derivative work of other GFDL-licensed images, Image:DerryCityJerseys.PNG must be GFDL-licensed not public domain.
• The writing looks a decent enough quality but I am not going to give it a detailed going over until these image issues are resolved, which should be done post haste. Qwghlm 11:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I was told to expand the lead in the peer-review. It was felt that what I originally had was rather vague. Condensing the complex reasons for Derry City's departure from the Irish League into less than a paragraph is quite tough. Anyway, I'll try my best with this, as well as work on the image issues. Thanks to all for the much-appreciated help so far. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 12:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK well I'll let the lead slide for now. Further considerations on my part: I think a lot of the prose could be shortened, by stripping out unnecessary words. Take, for example, the sentence which previously said:

but it was not until 12 years after that that they would win another major trophy. It was then in 1949 that the club won the Irish Cup for the first time, beating Glentoran in the final.

The sentences could be merged and words taken out - the 12 year gap (simple arithmetic), the fact it was the final (which is a bit of a given). I have got it down to:

However, they would not win another major trophy until 1949, when they beat Glentoran to win their first Irish Cup.

Apply similar summary style rules and you can probably get the length of the History section down. As it stands I think it is too wordy; additionally it overuses the passive voice in plenty of cases where the active will do (e.g.) I think it can be shortened without removing the essential details of the club's history. If you need a hand then I don't mind helping - I missed the PR while on holiday and couldn't help then. Qwghlm 13:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In addition to tightening the prose, perhaps the history section would be easier to read if it were broken up into smaller subsections. I would suggest thinking of logical ways to break it into eras. Quadzilla99 01:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Should I include a section for records or would the main page on records suffice? I notice that most of the other football club articles with featured status have records sections. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 12:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Response I'd base this article on the FA's i.e. have a section with the major records (in prose format) like highest win, defeat, crowd etc, and leave the lists and other such collections of less significant records to the sub-page. The Rambling Man 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I came across Image:Beckettbarca.jpg here so I removed the public domain tag and attached a fair use rationale. Image:Brandywell.jpg and Image:Derrycity2.jpg have been removed from the article and replaced by a public domain photo for the meantime. Meanwhile, I have emailed the sites holding the copyright for these photos again and am waiting on a response. I have also e-mailed the photographer who took Image:Dcfcsquad.JPG (as has SeanMack). The editor permitted me to use the photo via a private message on a fan forum, but I understand that confirmation is necessary so bear with me. I have also amended Image:DerryCityJerseys.PNG to a GFDL-license from public domain. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 02:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Object As Qwghlm notes, the prose is more verbose than it ought to be, and is confusing in places (I needed to read sentences such as The heading sword and cross were devices of the City of London, and along with an Irish harp embedded within the cross, demonstrated the link between the two cities (the city's official name under UK law is Londonderry), in particular, the association with the Honourable the Irish Society which had been granted lands in and around the city in the past. a number of times to comprehend them). Feel free to contact me if you need more specific comments or help. Oldelpaso 14:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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.