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 07:15, 4 September 2007.

---

Middlesbrough F.C.[edit]

(Self-nomination) Myself and others have been working on improving the article over the past few months and now feel it is of the same sort of standard as other football (soccer) club featured articles. --Simmo676 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: This article seems fully referenced and well written, although I must admit I am a bit biased for supporting this article, as I'm a Boro fan myself. ISD 19:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose I see no references in first paragraph of "Stadia", "Honours - Cup", "Honours - International", "Top appearances", "Top goalscorers", "Football League 100 Legends" and "Football League Hall of Fame". What is "fluxuated", "finising" and "borry"? --Kaypoh 08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Oppose for now. The lead does not follow guidelines at WP:LEAD. The lead should be a adequate summary of the whole article. At the moment it is not. Referencing needs to be improved. The stadium reference is only about Riverside and not about the previous stadia. There are several spelling mistakes throughout the article as highlighted by Kaypoh.Woodym555 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (changed to support, Woodym555 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Comment: I've corrected the spelling mistakes in the article and have referenced the Honours, appearances, goalscorers, FL 100 legends, and FL Hall of Fame sections. Stadia already had a relevant reference but I made it more clear that the reference in paragraph 2 also referenced paragraph 1. I also expanded the lead section and it is (in my opinion) comparable to the lead at Aston Villa F.C. which recently made FA status. I hope that addressed those concerns. --Simmo676 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes the lead looks good now, (i know about Villa because i was the nominator ;). There are some problems with the MOS. All of the scores need to have ndashes.

Also, the seasons need to be ndashes as well. E.g [[2002-03 in English football|2002–03 season]]. All seasons should be wikilinked to the appropriate articles. Most are but some are not at the moment.

All web references need retrieval dates. (I notice ref41 doesn't.)

The first instant of currency should be [[Pound Sterling|£]] per WP:MOSNUM.

The dates should be wikilinked correctly. I notice On 27 April 2006 in the history section is incorrect. Should be On 27 April 2006 for people's personal preferences to work. Woodym555 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other than that, the references look good and the prose is excellent. Woodym555 14:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I'd fix some of this myself, but it's been sprot'ed (s'proted?).
  • "Middlesbrough Football Club (commonly known as Boro) are an English football club based in Middlesbrough, Tees Valley, who currently play in the Premier League." Currently is also not the most encyclopedic word. "Who play" is just fine.
  • "The club was formed in 1876 and have"... In fact, the article alternates between singular and plural when referring to Middlesbrough. It'd be easier on readers if it was one or the other.
  • "...severe financial difficulties, however the club..." Ugh; please let's not have comma splices in an FAC.
  • Solo years and month/year combos should generally not be linked (full dates though should). Also, does "consortium" really need a link? 69.202.63.165 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: I've fixed Woodym555's suggestions and corrected the missing word "in" noticed by 69.202.63.165, as well as tried to correct the comma splice, and delinked solo dates. I also tried to correct the plurality problems I spotted. Also, I thought consortium needed linking as I didn't really understand what one was, and guessed some other people reading might now know exactly what one is too. --Simmo676 15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I did some little fixes such as wikilinks and a few weasel words. I have now changed to support, the article looks good. By the way, I have asked for unprotection and it has now been unprotected. Woodym555 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment A couple of queries:
  • Why is there a picture of the Middlesbrough Ironopolis team?
  • The Riverside was not the first stadium built in line with the Taylor Report, that was the Deva Stadium. The Riverside was the first all-seater to do so though.
  • I have some concerns about the prose (1a). When I get the opportunity I'll run through this in detail and leave comments on the talk page. Oldelpaso 11:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left some further comments about issues too minor to warrant an oppose on the article talk page. Oldelpaso 18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment:
  • The Middlesbrough Ironopolis team picture to think of it doesn't seem relevant to the article actually, so removing it would be a good idea it seems.
  • The MFC website says that the Riverside was the first stadium "designed and constructed to comply with the Taylor Report"[1]. The Deva Stadium article simply says it was the first English stadium "to fulfil the safety recommendations" of it. Is there a difference there? Were plans designed earlier and later changed? Though, the Deva being built two years after the report may dispill that. All-seater may be what was intended after all. --Simmo676 13:27, 2 September 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.