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 by SandyGeorgia 21:30, 28 August 2010 [1].

---

Liverpool F.C.[edit]

Liverpool F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after recent work on the article I feel it is close to Featured standard. The article in question has had premature candidacy's before, but I feel this is the best shape the article has ever been in. Anyway I look forward to your thoughts on the article and comments. Cheers NapHit (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I am sorry, the prose is nowhere near the standard required for a featured article. Apart from poor grammar, lack of clarity and some odd choices of phrase, there are also typos. The following is a small sample of the problems I found in an incomplete reading of the first few paragraphs

• "The club were founded in 1892 after Everton left Anfield after a dispute over rent." "after...after"?
• "...admitted to The Football League..." no capital in "the"
• In the second lead paragraph we have "Liverpool is..." and "They (meaning Liverpool) are..." This inconsistency occurs through the article. For example, the first and second paragraphs of the History section begin, respectively, "Liverpool F.C. was founded" and "Liverpool F.C. were founded"
• A "rivalry" and a "local derby" are different things and should not be confused.
• In the last lead paragraph we are first told that Liverpool FC is valued at £532m. We are then told that there was "a lengthy search for investment", whatever that means (does it mean investors, or a purchaser?) and that the club was bought for £218.9 million, evidently much less than it was worth. To the general reader this is mystifying.
• "multi-faceted dispute" seems overblown; I wonder whose phrase this is?
• "Everton F.C. founded and played at Anfield from 1884 to 1892." This sentence does not parse properly. The meaning is unclear
• "Fundamental difference emerged in how the club should be run when the club assessed the purchase of the whole of the Anfield site." Obscure, ungrammatical.
• "1989 also saw Liverpool involved in the most dramatic conclusion to a season of all time..." Wildly POV

And so on. I don't think this article was helped much by the recent peer review (see here. There is a long, long history of attempts at GA and FA, with frequent peer reviews, which have not helped to bring about the necessary improvements to the article. It needs the close attention of an editor with prose-writing skills and a feel for football club articles - there are several such articles which have become FAs and there is no reason why this should not join them in time. The article has good features, but is at present let down by the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My fault really I should have taken more care in reading the history section I kind of bypassed that section, Tom has copyedited a few paragraphs and I've gone over a few others, it looks in better nick now but see what you think. NapHit (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problems can be resolved within the timescale of an FAC, so I strongly recommend withdrawal until you are confident that the strict FA criterion relating to prose standards is met. Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh I agree, this nom was premature, I'd like it to be withdrawn so I can get it properly copyedited. NapHit (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to oppose too. I started copyediting this article in the hope of helping it to get through, but I think there is just too much work to do. The prose is quite frankly awful in places; this article needs a really good copyedit, and some additional references in places. I might keep chipping away at the prose over the course of today, in which case I may strike but ideally I think this needs to be taken away and have a bit of time spent polishing it, which I'm happy to help with. Tom (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Five paragraphs out of seven in a section detailing the club's 120-year history are dedicated to the past thirty years; undue weight to recent events and all that. 114.143.170.140 (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Others have opposed already, so I see no need to pile on. However, when I see something like "Liverpool is is the joint most successful club in the history of English football..." in the lead, it doesn't leave me with a good feeling. These are the types of errors that a good peer review should catch, and I don't know why that didn't happen here. This is the kind of topic that we should have featured, so I hope that the necessary copy-editing is done to make a future FAC smoother. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.