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 00:55, 23 December 2007.

Liverpool F.C.[edit]

previous FAC

After the last FAC there has been a thorough revision of the article and I now feel it is ready to be considered for FA status NapHit (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

as per WP:MOS, there are inconsistencies between the use of numerals or words for numbers. I've seen eighteen, fifteen and sixty-eight. Yet also 39, 96 and 19. Even a 3 has crept in. I'd simply opt for one to nine, (and maybe ten) then 11 onwards in numerals. But certainly have a consistent cut-off point at any rate.
 Done NapHit (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
some poor sentences, e.g. However, Liverpool have never won the Intercontinental Cup nor the FIFA Club World Cup as of yet despite all the European Cups with many instances involving refusal to take part. as of yet is redundant and the rest of the sentence doesn't appear to make sense.
 Done NapHit (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say done, but can you go through and check the rest of the article. I only gave that example as one example and a very poor one. Not that you had to delete the entire sentence unless you thought it best to. Peanut4 (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
problems with WP:POV, like unreferenced sentence their greatest achievement was an FA Cup final appearance in 1996
I cannot find this sentence in the article
In the Liverpool Ladies F.C. section. Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
inconsistencies with dates, e.g. 20s and 30s, yet also 1960s, etc.
 Done NapHit (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
inconsistencies with capped words. Is it double or Double?
 Done
inconsistencies of date format between date first and month first.
a few examples would be helpful
There's too many to list individually. I would pick an option either 16 December 2007 or December 16 2007 and go through and make sure they're all the same. Whether this is also maintained into the references section, I'm not sure, a more-experienced editor than myself may help out here. Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
problems with British English. Equalizer should be equaliser.
 Done NapHit (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't like the first line of the history section. I presume Everton played at Anfield but it doesn't say so.
 Done NapHit (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The colours section says all red. Is it really all red and nothing but red? Maybe I'm being finnicky here, sorry if so.
Apart from the sponsors livery it is all red so you probably are being finnicky NapHit (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's good don't get me wrong, very good in parts, just needs a lot of brushing up. Peanut4 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Comment

Apart from Heysel there is not really much more that is relevant to talk about so I will leave it as it is
I don't think Heysel captures the entire gamut of hooliganism surrounding Liverpool F.C. There is sufficient material available from the web to write an entire section surrounding it. We can't write a mushy, mushy article on Liverpool F.C. and its successes, without significantly mentioning the darker side of it. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please be clearer on what you're suggesting should be included that particularly characterises Liverpool F.C. and its supporters? Are we now going to trawl google and include every mention of every incident of some fans misbehaving in every football club article? Because that would mean including a new section on hooliganism on every club article. There is an article on football hooliganism for more general coverage of this. I agree with naphit that the specific issues which are notable for a general overview of the topic of Liverpool F.C. are the events at heysel and the subsequent ban. This has been included. Robotforaday (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That there is sufficient coverage on Liverpool F.C. and related hooliganism in various forms of media is a good enough reason for it to be included in the article. While it is foolish to include all such incidents, sufficient article space must be devoted to it. This article is being pitched for an FA. Hence, it is imperative that it includes comprehensive information related to the Liverpool F. C. Specifically, I would like to see more incidents of hooliganism mentioned and what has been the outcome and the club's response to that. Some of the things that I could find were: "Liverpool fans were responsible for many train wrecks in the 1960s", the Michael Shields affair, Three Liverpool fans convicted and serving four-month jail sentences in France, Liverpool fans arrested for FA cup violence, Liverpool supporters accused of stealing tickets from children and causing a catalogue of trouble in Europe by a report compiled on behalf of Uefa. The Heysel incident too has been mentioned in the article as more of an accident rather than an act of hooliganism. That also needs to be corrected. I would say any article on an English football club is incomplete without significantly mentioning associated acts of hooliganism. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That last sentence is a bit of a sweeping generalisation.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think an agenda is being pushed here; something that's not relevant to the nomination. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the only agenda I am seeing here is that people are trying to brush the issue of hooliganism under the carpet. That the article does not even contain the word hooligan (something which is frequently associated with Liverpool) is ample testimony to the fact. I have provided so many citations above related to it but still it is being ignored. May I remind you that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a fan site on Liverpool F.C. Rather than speculating about my intentions, why don't the editors be practical and come up with explanations on why it is irrelevant to write about the long history of hooliganism that Liverpool is associated with. Since User:ArtVandelay13 has questioned the relevancy of this to the nomination, I would like to clarify that the article as it stands today violates 1b and 1d of the featured article criteria. Fails 1b (Comprehensive - does not address hooliganism) and 1d (Neutral - for the same reason) -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google searching does not good research make. The key question here is, given an article of finite length, how we should decide what is relevant and what is not relevant for an article which is meant to cover over a hundred and ten years of a football clubs existance. I absolutely refute the idea that the article is imbalanced, given that the major tragedies of the 1980s and their consequences are well covered both in the lead and in the history section. I don't think that any article which deals with those incidents can be described as "mushy" in any sense. As far as I'm concerned, nothing further that you have provided here is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article, although some may argue that the "Michael Shields affair", as you call it, is, although I personally feel that would be gross recentism. Robotforaday (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me help you here. According to WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All sources that I have mentioned are from reputable sources and significantly covered and hence notable. When the article can include speculative sentences like "Local folklore claimed that the fans in the Kop could "suck the ball into the goal" if Liverpool were playing towards that end — and in most games, Liverpool play the second half towards the Kop.", I see no reason why the article cannot devote space to talk about the bigger issue of hooliganism -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If interpreted literally as applying to what should be included in this article (rather than being worthy of note elsewhere, but not necessarily in this article) that guideline would imply that this article should mention every transfer in and out of Liverpool, every match, and, yes, every incident of crime in or around stadiums where Liverpool F.C. were playing. Robotforaday (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unindent) You still have not answered my question, let me re-iterate "Why is it irrelevant to mention the history of hooliganism associated with Liverpool F.C. in this article despite many reliable sources talking about it?". You convince me on that and I am outta here. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would suggest that if this is a sticking point for FA then a Supporters section could be created like other articles that optionally covers the following - the City (and sometimes families) being segregated into Red vs Blue, the 'liverpool for life' ethos of some fans, supporters trust's and associations if any, charitable work, worldwide fanbase, mention of controversies that appear to paint the fans as hooligans and any refutations, such as the sun's front page about hillsborough and the UEFA claim of 'worst fans in europe' (and it's refutation by platini), banning orders and crime statistics from the home office, liverpool fc's policy on ejection/banning of anti-social supporters and a couple of examples of violence between supporter groups. By no means do i think that any of this is necessary, just trying to come up with a compromise that doesn't involve creating an enormous section on hooliganism (may take some work tho). (BTW, see this for an article that gives way to much weight to this topic). Nanonic (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The major event related to hooliganism in Liverpool's history is Heysel. The article already mentions Heysel, and not in softly-softly terms. With the possible exception of Michael Shields, the other incidents mentioned above are either minor or refuted. In the annual police statistics about football-related arrests, the figures for Liverpool are nothing out of the ordinary ([www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/football-arrests-0506?view=Binary see this UK Home Office pdf for an example]) Generally speaking, when it comes to hooliganism, myths and exaggerated stories frequently outnumber facts, the infamous Sun story being a particularly notorious example; quite a few books on hooliganism would probably be more appropriate inclusions for the fiction section than the non-fiction. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, lets look at it from the view of a layman reader who encounters this article and is interested in it. He/she sees this Heysel incident being mentioned and this being a significant event, the reader would be interested to know if this is a one-off incident or has there been a history of such hooliganism incidents related to Liverpool F. C. Also, of interest would be the club's response to such incidents and what steps has the club taken to prevent a recurrence of such events. This info is lacking in the article. While a section can be written on this, the minimum that is required is atleast a paragraph covering this. Hooliganism is no joke, else it sounds foolish to see Merseyside police working alongside Rome's police to prevent hooliganism in a match involving AS Roma and Liverpool. The reluctance of the editors to even touch this topic is baffling. It is easy to come up with cliches like "Google searching does not good research make.", which makes me wonder whether the 30-odd web citations that exist in the article just appeared out of magic, huh... Editors of the Swindon Town F.C. article have done a good job in writing a detailed section on this topic. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you are making assumptions about Liverpool F.C. based upon hearsay, which you are then backing up with google searches. I could do the same about any stereotype. You are clearly pushing an agenda. Robotforaday (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it is not me who is talking of it. It is the sources that I am pointing out to you. Why dont you talk about them? So, you feel BBC and Telegraph and all others are trying to push some unseen agenda against Liverpool F.C. I have assumed good faith till now but I have had enough. So this is the last time I am hearing this agenda stuff from you, next time it will be a WP:NPA warning on your talk page. You still have not answered my question "Why is it irrelevant to mention the history of hooliganism associated with Liverpool F.C. in this article despite many reliable sources talking about it?". Since that is the basic point of these argument, request you to keep your responses limited to the question and keep aside the speculation of any agenda from my end. BTW, when did reliable sources from the web become classified as hearsay. Many of the citations in the Liverpool F.C. article are from websites, are they hearsay as well?. If that is the case, why are they existing in the article? Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 01:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you seem unable to understand is that the article, in order to be balanced, cannot include every reference to Liverpool F.C. which appears on the web. A google search for "Liverpool F.C." gives me 3,510,000 hits. Very few of those are of a level of significance to appear in this article, as it is an overview of the topic. You therefore have to select those things of most significance; hence things like European cup victories, League Championships and Heysel are referred to. Charity Shield victories, transfers, and individual arrests are not; not because they are not significant per se, but because they are not significant enough to be mentioned in a general overview. My belief (and it is simply that) is that you have assumed that Liverpool has a particular hooligan problem, and you have done google searches to back up your assertions. (You have clearly misunderstood my point about hearsay - I think your assumption that hooliganism is an issue is based on hearsay, and that you have google searched for individual incidents in order to back up that hearsay.) That is your prerogative, however, I am pointing out we need to have stricter criteria of significance for inclusion on this article than simply "I saw this somewhere on the web; don't you think it should be included?". Yes, web citations are used in this article, but the crucial point is that not everything on the web pertaining to Liverpool F.C. can be included. Rest assured that if someone was insisting that the history section mention every time Liverpool have won the European Super Cup (and somebody has done this in the past) I would say that they are being ridiculous then as well. As for whether or not you are pushing an agenda, you can stick whatever you want on my talk page, I'm a grown-up and I can take it. I simply don't like people pushing stereotypes of any sort. Robotforaday (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problems (as I see it) come in a few different forms, firstly the use of the word "hooliganism" is a very emotionally charged word that implies pre-meditated violence and proving that such a culture exists around any club without objective sources isn't easy. Violence between fans in English football itself is nothing new, usually in heat of the moment exchanges pre and post match. It can be (and has been) argued in the wider football community that the elements of "supporters" who actively arrange and engage in pre-meditated fights is slim compared to the overall fanbase of a club, therefore it is seen by some that the labelling of a club as having problems or an association with hooliganism is therefore painting all fans as such. Each act of violence draws its own wide press attention for being notable, and yes none should be ignored when considering what to add, but on inclusion; a balance must be struck in the article between both "good" supporters and "bad" supporters to avoid accusations of bias. In a lot of cases the acts themselves are few and far between, but when they do happen they get a fair amount of press. In some cases it is another club that commits the acts of violence such as in the BBC story you linked above about Liverpool vs AS Roma, should this appear in the Liverpool article because some of the clubs fans were stabbed or in the AS Roma article as club-related hooliganism? It is also widely perceived amongst football fans that some hooligan "firms" exist purely for violence and their attachment to the club is only a means to achieve this, the comment oft quoted is that they are not "true fans" of a particular club and tarnish the image of a club by association with it. Do we include groups and acts that are in some cases only tangentially associated with a club in an article? And lastly the latest arrest statistics don't seem to point to any problems with "hooliganism" per se, of the 78 arrests of Liverpool fans made during the 2005-06 premier league season - 51 were related to non-violent acts (mainly alcohol related offences), 16 were for public disorder, 4 for violent disorder, 1 for vandalism, 2 for carrying offensive weapons and 1 was for racist chanting (with 3 miscellaneous). That's only 78 arrests in 38 games with an average attendance of 44,000 per game (approx 1,672,000 supporters). It all really boils down to is there a significant hooliganism culture associated with the club? and if there is can it be presented in a balanced way that doesn't over weigh the article? Nanonic (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also in teh club culture part, there is an unsourced paragraph and a one sentence paragraph.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose -No references in intro -still in need of a thorough copyedit. As pointed out above several of the statements are misleading and not written from neutral viewpoint. Potentially an FA with a bit of work though but a long way to go yet. Keep at it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 22:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now, this is something which interests me. We USED to have a fully sourced lead for this article, but someone removed all of the citations, citing WP:LEAD, which seemed reasonable. So should leads be fully cited even when everything in the lead will be cited later? Could someone please clarify this, as the previous editor was clearly acting in good faith. Robotforaday (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, on a seperate point, could you please clarify what exactly you feel it is which is not written from a neutral viewpoint in the current version of the article? Robotforaday (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the citations from the lead, because all of them were sourced later in the aticle, and based on WP:LEAD it is pointless to repeat the sources, and there is not any controversial topics in the lead' NapHit (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
More