The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2019 [1].
This article is has come together nicely. Hzh has done alot of heavy lifting here and I can't see anything actionable prose- or comprehensiveness-wise. With three nominators issues should be dealt with promptly. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You've done a job of work on this and no mistake. A couple of points on prose that jump out at a skim read. No major malfunctions though.
president until 1894, would became an important> become
between themselves, the number of friendly fixtures against other clubs however would gradually increase> In the first two years, the boys largely played games between themselves; the number of friendly fixtures against other clubs would, however, gradually increase
this was changed for 1895 to 1898> from?
On this the London Football Association found the club> On this, the London Football Association found the club
agreed to play for Spurs, but arrived without any kit> agreed to play for Spurs but arrived without any kit
However, press coverage over the incidence raised> However, press coverage over the incident raised
found the club guilty of professionalism with financial inducement to attract a player to the club after Fulham complained of poaching of their player
Fulham then complained to the London Football Association that Tottenham had poached their player and were guilty of professionalism having breached amateur rules. On the latter charge, the London Football Association found Tottenham guilty as the payment for the boots was judged an 'unfair inducement' to attract the player to the club.I hope this is satisfactory. Hzh (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Wording adjusted. Hzh (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Charles Roberts and a local businessman John Oliver> Charles Roberts and local businessman John Oliver
took up post as the first ever manager of Spurs>
cup-winning> should this be Cup-winning? I'm not too sure myself, but I'm leaning towards it being a proper noun.
Kirkham however was not a success> Kirkham, however, was not a success
charge however saw Spurs unexpectedly relegated> charge, however, saw Spurs unexpectedly relegated
Tresadern however failed to lift> Again, add commas. Note—however!—that this is one of the most over- and mis-used words in wirtten English. I know this is a big article, but you use it over seventy times; they're not all necessary. I'm not going to comment on them again, but suggest ctrl+f and eliminating those you don't need (most of them) and adding commas where you do.
Peter McWilliam returned to Spurs, and tried to rebuild> Peter McWilliam was brought back as manager, and tried to rebuild...or something like that. No Spurs necessary; we know what team we're talking about by now!
beyond the quarter finals of the FA Cup in the 30s> beyond the quarterfinals of the FA Cup in the 30s...one word
travel long distance for the matches drawn up by the Football League, and decided to run their own competitions> no comma required
terrible state of the White Hart Lane pitch,> Ditto.
It was the best ever start by any club in the top flight of English football, until it was> It was to be the best start by any club in the top flight of English football until it was
the final of the 1960–61 FA Cupextraneous space
Rotterdam, Spurs won 5–1, includingditto
Steve Perryman would become Spurs' longest serving playerhyphenate "longest serving"
Tottenham managed to reached four cup finals> reach
70s cup-winning team had by now left or retiredAgain, cap for Cup?
A memorable game early in the season came at home to Bristol Rovers, when Spurs won 9–0, no comma req.
a new phase of redevelopment of White Hart Lane> choice of: a new phase of the redevelopment of White Hart Lane / a new phase of redeveloping White Hart Lane / a new phase of redevelopment at White Hart Lane.
Spurs managed a nine game unbeaten start, hyphenate "nine-game"
who had little knowledge of the club's history (alleged to have said...> who had little knowledge of the club's history (and was alleged to have asked))...or something Incidentally. does "double" have to be capitalised? I wouldn't have thought so, important as it is to Spurs fans :)
but then reverted on appealThink you mean, "reversed on appeal"
as replacement for the> to replace the
after Sheringhham was injuredOf all the names for you to mis-spell!
in June 1994 the club was found found guilty of makingIt was only found once
howeverissue was brought up below, but that its usage has been reduced to nearly single-figures. Everything else has also been addressed. Up the Irons! :p D Supporting this candidature. ——SerialNumber54129 12:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Even by Wikipedia practices, 26 uses of "however" is far too many. Use it only where needed to show contrast, and not as just another conjunction. Consider using "but", or recasting the sentence to use "although". Eric Corbett has some good advice and links here and here. Kablammo (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Image review
Also seeing a number of ref errors that should be sorted before someone does a source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
This is essentially a great article. Maybe a local map with annotations would help, if you can find someone to do it.
I've started some copyediting. There is a lot, and I mean a lot of curious use of English. Most objectionable is the repeated use of the word "would" instead of the ordinary perfect tense, or sometimes future tense. I fixed a bunch, but when I saw there were roughly 50 more occurrences, I thought the team that wrote the article really ought to fix this. Please ping me when done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Note to FAC team: there's a lot of work going on with the article at the moment. Inactivity here isn't inactivity. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Nominators, please look out for detail that falls between excessive and insufficient with regard to players. For example, this paragraph:
Soon after the club became a limited company, on 14 March 1898, Frank Brettell was appointed the first manager of Spurs.[33] Bretell signed a number of players from northern clubs, such as Harry Erentz, Tom Smith, Harry Bradshaw, James McNaught, and in particular John Cameron, who signed from Everton in May 1898 and was to have a considerable role in the history of the club. Cameron became player-manager the following February, after Bretell left to take a better-paid position at Portsmouth, and led the club to its first trophies, the Southern League title in 1899-1900 and the 1901 FA Cup. In his first year as manager, he signed seven players: George Clawley, Ted Hughes, David Copeland, Tom Morris, Jack Kirwan, Sandy Tait and Tom Pratt. In the following year Sandy Brown replaced Pratt who wanted to return to the North despite being the top goalscorer. They, together with Cameron, Erentz, Smith and Jones, formed the 1901 Cup-winning team.[34]
...names 12 or 13 players (never been very good at maths), but only refers to the importance of four or five of them. So why mention the others by name? In an article about the history of a club that's well over 100 years old, surely you should only mention the really very important players - and in every case where you do, the reader will want to know why they merit mention. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
There are still lots of named players littering the article in all eras, whose supreme importance is not asserted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Given that the rivalry with Arsenal is so important to Spurs, relegating the genesis of the rivalry to an aside in brackets feels insubstantial. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Possibly unfair and poorly timed comment: I'm just not active enough (watch my next edit) at the moment to do this justice. It's a huge and high quality piece of work but I have strong reservations about the quality of the prose. In places, it looks like it's been written by someone for whom English is a second language, something I've alluded to in a number of edit summaries as I've been slowly copy-editing. I cannot commit to finishing the job and I feel I'm slowing down this process. So here's my thought. Support, entirely conditional on detailed third-party copyedit. Without one, I'm actually really close to oppose (and if I'm true to myself, I would oppose on those grounds if it weren't that Cas was involved, to whom I owe a great deal, and merely offering conditional support grieves me). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Note: ref numbers are as at the date of this post. A report on the second half will follow presently. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Continuing - second column:
Subject to the above, this looks like a comprehensively sourced article with over 300 citations, mostly to sources of appropriate quality and reliability.Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
A few thoughts from a quick canter through:
I hope these few quick points are of use. Tim riley (Everton F.C.) talk 19:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Tim riley, BrEng has a weird pluralisation for football teams. When I've worked on FACs on football before, I've dealt with the corporate body club in the singular ("Norwich City is the best club in Anglia") and the team in the plural ("Norwich City are the best team in Anglia"). But pretty much whatever you do looks wrong to someone. What's important is consistency. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
...the club is very well run...- [4], note also the use of plural in
Tranmere are...) Using singular or plural in a sentence simply signals to the readers what is being referred to in that sentence. The only confusion that may arise (for non-BrEng speakers) is when plural is used for the club, which is possible in British English for football club. Hzh (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Coordinator note: Fixing the ping for Tim riley. Sarastro (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Kosack
|
---|
Casliber has asked me to take a look at this one. My initial comments on a run through: Lead
Formation
Early years
Professional status
Move to White Hart Lane
1901 FA Cup
Election to the Football League
Interwar years
War and post-war lull
League title
Post-Rowe
Bill Nicholson and the Glory Years (1958–1974)
The Double
Continuing success
Decline and revival under Keith Burkinshaw (1974–1984)
Relegation
Cup wins and European success
Shreeves and Pleat (1984–1987)
Cup win and boardroom drama
Beginning of Premier League football (1992–2004)
Ardiles, Francis and Gross
New ownership and Glenn Hoddle
Villas-Boas and Sherwood
A new era under Pochettino (2014–present)
New stadium
References
I'm not an experienced FA reviewer but I have experience reviewing GAs and I would raise all of the points above in a normal GA review. As such, I would assume they would be worth dealing with at FA level. There is a minor but consistent WP:OVERLINK issue throughout but that's not hard to deal with. There is also some inconsistency in position wording, for example both fifth and 5th are used in the article, although I'm unsure of how important that is so I'll leave it up to others to raise if necessary. Happy to take any constructive criticism of my review if its not up to scratch though. Kosack (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Follow up[edit]I've had another run through today and found a few more issues to look at. Early years
1901 FA Cup
War and post-war lull
The Spurs Way
Bill Nicholson and the glory years (1958–1974)
Cup wins and European success
Shreeves and Pleat (1984–1987)
Beginning of Premier League football (1992–2004)
Resurgence and the Champions League (2004–2014)
Harry Redknapp
That'll probably be all from me on this one. Kosack (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC) |
Comments – I've read part of the way through the article and have a couple of (minor) thoughts so far, not counting ones that were mentioned above:
Coordinator comment: I'm a little concerned that we are heading towards this FAC being open for 6 weeks, and we have a lot of text here but still no real consensus that it meets the FA criteria. I'm going to add this to the urgent list, but I'm a little concerned that the wall of text might put off any new reviewers. It might be worth the nominators pinging those who have commented earlier to see if they have anything further to add, or this could be in danger of archiving. Sarastro (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Closing comment: I think there is enough support and commentary for promotion now. I'd just like to add to the praise for the copy edit that pushed us over the line by Eric Corbett. One final point for the nominators to consider after promotion: the duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few, although some may be justified by the length of the article. This tool will highlight any duplication, and I leave it to the main editors to decide which need to be kept. Sarastro (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)