FA Premier League

This article was previously nominated (see here) but failed. Since that time a number of editors have working to bring the article up to FAC standards. The use of lists has been vastly reuced, the article is well-written and far more informative than it once was, and the content is complete and written from a NPOV. - Pal 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - per nom. - Pal 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment — "The decision to go with pay TV is still criticised by many, particularly with reference to the cost when compared with other pay TV platforms around Europe that offer coverage of live top flight domestic football." is not supported by a reference; it also contains what some may consider to be weasel words ;) — Deckiller 07:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've junked that sentence. I'm working on referencing or eliminating any other unreferenced statements. Oldelpaso 09:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Object. Jeronimo 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Norwegian picture is hardly illustrative or relative. Furthermore, it requires people to zoom in to even read what it's about, and read even further to understand what's going on. Instead, I would expect some pictures of relevant players, coaches, clubs, etc. There are many available in Wikipedia.
  • A lot of the article is very listy, without any prose. The all-time table is nice, but I'm not sure it belongs (in full form) in this article. Similarly, the "current season" get's a lot of detail, but the other seasons don't. The article should be a good overview of the entire history, not just today. Make it a separate article (if not already present).
  • The article needs more references to the previous league system; and I think it may even be better to join the article with Football League First Division, as it is basically just it's continuation under a different name.
  • The media section has a tiny bit on "worldwide", but it is supposedly one of the most internationally followed sports leagues. More must (and can) be said about it. The media section also completely focuses on TV, but there are other media. We'd also like to know more figures on numbers of spectators throughout history (not just the 2006 figure) to get a better perspective.

Could you clarify point two please? On one hand you say the article is too list heavy, yet including more details on prior seasons would likely necessitate inclusion of more lists in order to show participating teams (a list of this type was actually removed recently). Or perhaps your referring to the "team movement" section? Because that really could be removed. Thanks. - Pal 21:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a two things in my second point: 1) Long lists or tables are best avoided, unless they're essential to the article. Replace it with prose and a part of the table/list, while referring to a separate "List of" article if necessary. 2) Don't include a separate section on the current season, the article is about all of the League's history, not just next season. Put the stuff in a separate article and refer to it. - However, I think the crucial point for me is #3. Jeronimo 07:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The suggestion to merge FA Premier League and Football League First Division is an entirely erroneous one, as they were separate competitions and ran side-by-side between 1992 and 2004. See Talk:Football League First Division. Qwghlm 07:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to Jeronimo: In regards to the list of teams in the current season, I feel strongly that this info should not be split off from the article. This is not an article only about the FAPL's history, but about its present as well. And as there can be no FAPL without the clubs, I think this is a case where a list is useful. In other words, it is not really a section that focuses on the current season, but rather on the format of the competition. The only reason a reference is made to "current" is due to promotion/relegation issues.

The all-time table could probably be split off, however. - Pal 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Object - incomplete, some POV. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please elaborate? - Pal 13:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too much focus on current events and games. Not enough comparison information (comparing rules&regulations to other Premier Leagues, showing popularity of FA Premiere League compared to other Premier League). Then the history section talks about Football in England in general rather than the premiere league in specific. And the whole article just seemms lacking. --GoOdCoNtEnT 16:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issues were fixed. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Object -- After reviewing the article I have some points and questions,
• Of these, the most successful are Manchester United and Arsenal, who have won the title eight and three times respectively -- This stat doesnt need mentioning in the lead. Just mention the most successful ie "Man.U who have won eight, the current Premier League champions are...."
• in Origins ...consider leaving the Football League in to capitalize on the ... has something been removed or left out.
• UEFA and FIFA should be linked on the first instance. I would prefer to see these acronyms in full at first instance.
• the Bolton, Fulham match image should have the horizon tilt corrected or does the game get played on an incline.
• decide which it is -- TV deals, television rights(TV rights), television agreement, broadcasting agreement. It doesnt matter which terminology you use but use one and be consistant.
• League corporate structures, is this an independant league, or part of a governing body, how does it work with in the these structures. An overview of club ownerships, can I create my own club from sctratch, do I need to buy a license to become part of the league. Affiliations does the league have input to a UK body or direct input to FIFA or UEFA.

Not being from Europe I dont know how all these leagues are related to each other, its something that should be covered in this type of article, at least from this leagues position within it. Gnangarra 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Points 1-3 should be taken care of now. I'm not sure what to do about the picture. There seems to be a lack of images relating to the PL available in Wikipedia, and it makes sense to have one relating to the competition, even though the slant is kind of annoying. I can see your point on the final two points. I'll try and work on that. Thanks for the feedback. - Pal 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I rotated the image 2 degrees then cropped to square. Image quality was poor rotation degraded it a bit more, horizon is level. Remember to refresh your cache to view Gnangarra 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for fixing that! - Pal 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unchanged vote, my concern about the Acronym if consensus can be reached I'll support. saying you should know it, or be able to guess from the article isnt sufficient reason... Gnangarra 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Thankyou for addressing the concerns I'm now happy to support this nomination Gnangarra 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Object:
  • The "Competition and structure" section should be split; the middle "Competition" part promoted to a single section, while the finance-related paragraphs either side merged into a single section (e.g. 'Finances and Turnover').
  • Remove or correct the Title Holders graphic, it is currently misleading. Arsenal do not play at home in yellow, nor do Blackburn play in all-white.
  • FIFA and UEFA do not need to be spelt out in full.
  • The Jack Walker picture should not be used, I don't believe the Fair Use rationale is strong enough. Try delving round other club articles to find Premier League action shots (there are some; alternatively, try searching Flickr for any with an appropriate Creative Commons licence).
  • Change "last season" link in list of teams to "2005-06" so as to be more specific.
  • All-time table and all-time scorers table both need references.
  • Trim "See also" section. The gulf/Curse of Christmas arguably deserve to be described in their own paragraph on how far the PL has pulled away from lower divisions. Remove all links without the phrase 'Premier League' in them, and if any of the remaining ones have been already linked to in the article, drop them too.
  • Web citations need 'Retrieved on' need dates on all of them.
• There are also some minor content issues but I will probably edit them myself in due course. Qwghlm 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • All of the above have been solved, but I have one final additional objection - the percentages of foreign players in squads is not referenced, nor the methodology explained; how is it measured consistently across different teams with different sized squads. For example, do you count youth or reserve players or not? Or loaned-out players? (Arsenal's figure goes down if you take them into account, though I won't deny it's still quite high:) ). I would recommend deleting it unless a satisfactory source and methodology can be supplied. Qwghlm 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Last objection has now been resolved, so changing vote to full-hearted Support. Qwghlm 07:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • • I couldn't find a source so I just removed those lines; it wasn't real important anyway. - Pal 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why dont FIFA and UEFA need to be in full at the first instance not everybody is familiar with these acronyms. to quote WP:ABBR Acronym usage in article body The full name should always be the first reference in an article, and thereafter acronyms are acceptable. There is no consistent rule about periods—in general, avoid them, unless the preferred usage is otherwise (for example, U.S., but UK). Gnangarra 17:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that the Wikipedia article on FIFA is entitled FIFA and not Fédération Internationale de Football Association. It is known worldwide by its acronym FIFA. I'm a well educated English football fan of 26 years, and although I understood exactly what FIFA was, I didn't know what the letters stood for before clicking a link on Wikipedia. No-one calls it by it's full French name. The same is true of the Union of European Football Associations.

Quoting from WP:ABBR:

• Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples).

If one truely doesn't know what the acronym stands for from general knowledge or the context it is used in, one can click through to its main page. I don't see how including a long French phrase helps either article flow or anyone's understanding. There are certain times when the rules you state are not needed, and I would argue strongly that FIFA and UEFA are two of these cases. aLii 23:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Okay, this is really a request for comment. As I see it, there are several issues where there is some dispute as to what should be done to improve this article to FA status. Feel free to post comments immediately after each item (or even add more). Thanks. - Pal 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The "Origins" section - Some say this shouldn't include any info (or just a very brief mention) of the PL's predacessor, others say there is not enough.

• Only the immediate past where events affected the formation of the PL. Gnangarra

• The current members section. If most feel that there is too much info about the current clubs (and in fact, the info is already contained here), perhaps a simple table (like this one) would be more suitable?

• Whats there is the maximum you would want. Gnangarra

• Do you mean on the FAPL page or the sandbox page? - Pal 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• FAPL article Gnangarra 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Whether to use the fullnames of FIFA and UEFA still seems to be an issue.

• I come from a country where the only game we here about is the cup final so the acronyms are meaning less. Gnangarra 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• What if, instead of the full names (which still might not be entirely clear since FIFA's is in French), we instead gave a brief description. I.e. in the first reference to UEFA, the sentence would read "UEFA, European football's governing body, lifted the ban on English clubs playing in European competitions in 1990..." - Pal 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That would be a fair compromise Gnangarra 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• FIne by me too.

• Support, good well written article, though I dont know if it has already been included somewhere else, if so, just tell me where, but a reference to what seem to be known as the "Premier League Parachute Payments" I dont know where to put it myself, I thought maybe Premiership-Football League gulf but then its relevant to all clubs not just newly promoted and relegated ones. Philc _T^E_C^I 12:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My understanding is that "parachute payments" refer only to the payments made to relegated teams in their first two seasons out of the PL (here's an article for reference). These payments come out of the PL's television revenue, but it doesn't seen they are directly relevant to other clubs, so I'd say it could be included in the "Premiership-Football League gulf" section. - Pal 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yeh I know, but the gulf section is about how newly promoted teams are relegated often straight away, whereas any clubs recieve parachute payments, not just those who are relegated in their first season, they could have never been relegated from the Premier league before in which case the gulf would be somewhat irrelavent to them.Philc _T^E_C^I 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support An excellent article. --Kitch 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]