Talk:Oxford United F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oxford United F.C. article.
Article policies
Good article Oxford United F.C. has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Shortcut:
Oxford United F.C.

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand: All Oxford United related articles
  • Other:
    • Add free use images for biographical articles.
    • Add infoboxes to all Oxford United related articles



Contents

[edit] Accrington Stanley

I have repeated my earlier edit (if not the exact wording), so that it now says:

One of the sides to be promoted to the League at that time will be Accrington Stanley, which was also one of the sides which were relegated from the League when Oxford was promoted to it in 1962.

An alternative version said something like Oxford had taken the place of Accrington Stanley, and that A.S. will now take the place of Oxford. Given that three clubs are promoted and three relegated, I am not aware of any basis for saying which of the clubs that go up takes the place of each club that goes down. Or can someone who disagrees with this please explain?

I also removed the word "ironically". I think it's ironic too, but that's arguably POV; the facts speak for themselves.

Arbitrary username 17:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded your edit as it talks about promotion and relegation; in 1962 there was no automatic promotion and relegation between the lower leagues and League Division 4 - clubs were elected to the League on an occasional basis. Accrington weren't relegated, they resigned from the league for financial reasons; Oxford weren't promoted from the Southern League, they were elected to fill the vacancy left by Accrington. In this case - one team in, one out - it's reasonable to state that Oxford "replaced" Accrington. The current situation is different, as two teams (not three, incidentally) are changing leagues. Some Oxford supporters have argued (half-heartedly and somewhat facetiously) that technically Accrington (top of the Conference) replace Rushden (bottom of the League), and that the team that "replaces" Oxford will be Hereford United (who won the Conference playoff), but it's an arguable distinction. Accrington and Hereford replace Oxford and Rushden, but no particular team replaces any specific other. I agree with the removal of "ironically" - it's not irony, it's coincidence. Dave.Dunford 06:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made a similar change to the Accrington page. Dave.Dunford 14:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the information; that's really helpful. Obviously I didn't quite realize the situation, but that's partly because nobody had explained it properly before you did. Arbitrary username 18:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


The other argument that could be aired is that the current Accrington Stanley is not the same club as the one that Oxford replaced. The original AS went bust in 1962, while the current club was established in 1968, with different directors and playing at a different ground. On the other hand, this might be deemed as clutching at straws. [[User talk:Brodders|Talk to me]] 13:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honours

This entry:

  • League Titles – Div. 2: Champions 1984–5, Runners Up 1995–6; Div. 3: Champions 1967–8, 1983–4; Div. 4: Promoted (4th) 1964–5

gives the rather misleading impression that Oxford have twice been promoted into the highest division in the League. The 1995–96 promotion, although the division at the time was called the Second Division, was actually from the third- to second-highest division in the overall league (as were the promotions in 1967–8 and 1983–4).

I'm not sure what the form is elsewhere (and personally I wish the marketing men had left the leagues alone) but it seems clearer to move it to the Div 3 honours:

  • League Titles – Div. 2: Champions 1984–5; Div. 3: Champions 1967–8, 1983–4, Runners Up 1995–6; Div. 4: Promoted (4th) 1964–5

Anyone agree or disagree? I'll make the change shortly if no-one disagrees. Dave.Dunford 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No feedback so change made as promised. Dave.Dunford 08:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Honours have now been listed differently, pre- and post-Premiership. (I'm not sure it's any clearer, but it's more accurate.) Thus the above query is no longer relevant. Dave.Dunford 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 6, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written? Fail. Needs a very thorough copyedit to sort several issues
  • As per WP:HEAD, some section headings need tidied to remove inappropriate capitalization, as does the prose text (I see a "Quarter Final", for example).
Y Done Eddie6705 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The en dash is used for date ranges and scores, but inconsistently.
Y Done Eddie6705 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd remove the fourth paragraph in the lead; the club's hopes/expectations for the future aren't really suitable for the opening.
Y Done Eddie6705 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see more wikilinks; will every reader know what a "CVA" is, for example?
Y Done Eddie6705 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Tidy the references. I'd personally prefer them after punctuation with no spaces, but you need to pick one, grammatically correct style (See Help:Footnotes). Convert the FOUL link to an inline citation while you're doing it.
Y Done by User:DeLarge
  • Joe Ross links to a dab page. Best to check all your wikilinks.
Y Done Eddie6705 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate? Fail. There's several of the more contentious statements which, while I don't dispute that they're true, really need to be referenced so we can cover ourselves: Lawrenson's sacking, Mark Wright's racist remark ~ WP is now very strict on maing such claims without attribution. See WP:ATT and WP:VERIFY
Y Done Eddie6705 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage? Pass.
4. Neutral point of view? Pass.
5. Article stability? Pass.
6. Images? Pass, but the aticle would be impoved if there were images, and surely they should be very easy to obtain?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — DeLarge 14:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


OK, it's much improved. There's some wee things I overlooked or did not mention because I was concerned with the overall article standard. Now you're closer to GA status, failworthy items remaining are more visible:
  • The mention of Jefferson Louis' antics really require attribution along with the others listed previously.
  • Find a better reference source for the Heysel stadium disaster, as per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.
  • I'd prune the External links as per WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINKS. None of the sites used for inline citations need linking for starters. I'd put the official site first, then the third party stats sites (and there's no need to duplicate excessively ; pick the best one or two). And I'd lose all the supporters' clubs/fanzines/wallpapers entirely. That kind of "fanboy" stuff is what Google or the Open Directory Project is for.
Now the tricky bit. While it's easy to run through ticking boxes, there's a certain qualitative standard expected as well. I know you're not (yet) going for FA status, but there's a couple of things I'd like you to consider. Note that these aren't demands, just suggestions. You don't necessarily have to agree to them, but if you can indulge me, I'd like you to justify why they wouldn't improve the article:
  • There's a lot of section headings, most of them for single paragraphs, and I think rationalising them a little might work, especially in the History section (which looks a bit over-nested; see 1.4.1).
  • Also, while I understand the chronological approach, I think it might flow better if you included all the "performance" sections together, and handled the off-the-field financial stuff separately. You could probably cover both in about two sections.
  • In the Current squad section, I think "current" when referring to management in the sub-section is redundant. How about two sub-headings, Players, and Management or Backroom staff?
  • I'm not sure I'd have quite so much bold text in the Records section.
  • While the article starts well, it kind of falls into bullet pointing too easily. I'd prefer to see a lot more prose. What I'd suggest here is
  1. lose the shirt sponsors section entirely ~ what's verifiable isnt necessarily notable, and none of the featured football club articles I looked at seemed to include it.
  2. concentrate only on the notable managers who achieved success at Oxford, unless the success they "achieved elsewhere" was highly significant and/or they retained a demonstrable attachment to Oxford United after they left. Also, as per the featured articles I looked at, you could tabulate the list, and include their statistics/achievements. Selectively expand, if you know what I mean.
I hope all this helps. Regards, --DeLarge 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass

Rather than slapping a(nother) GA-related template on this page, I'll simply pass it. The nominee maintained the standards of the originally submitted version, while improving those areas which needed work. I particularly like the new tables for notable players and managers, and I think the history section flows a little better.

There's little bits still to tweak if the editors want to try for Featured status (the opening of the Life in the second tier section is a bit of a run-on sentence, for example). Also, to be truly comprehensive, I think some research might be required to trace the origins and early history of the club as Headington Utd. Nevertheless, I think standards are higher than when other club articles reached FA-class in the past, and I think it stands up very well against similar pages at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Sport and recreation. Well done. --DeLarge 18:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1994–1999

At some point many edits ago much of the history of the 90s (including the 1996 promotion, and Malcolm Shotton's appointment as manager) was removed, probably accidentally. It needs to be reincorporated, but I don't have time right now. The current section talks about Denis Smith as manager then abruptly continues with Shotton's resignation. I also think the "Financial crisis" section should be amalgamated into the general chronologically ordered account - it's a bit out of place where it is currently. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to the 90's information, but the financial crisis is where it is after a suggestion in the GA nomination. See above. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)