Self-nomination. I've been working on this article for a number of months now, in tandem with some extremely useful work from ChrisTheDude (who has also put in a load of work creating spinoff articles on some of the comic's more popular backup strips). It now, as far as I can see, represents a thorough and comprehensive overview of one of the UK's most popular ever comic book series, making use of just about every available reference and resource that exists online and in print (which, despite its popularity at its height, sadly isn't a huge number, particularly with regards to what's available online).
- I've worked hard at the prose and section editing so that I think it flows as it should, including a concise and informative lead.
- All images contained in the article are copyrighted, but they all have fair use rationales and each serve a separate purpose in illustrating distinct eras of the strip and comic - and I've spoken to the person who runs the official ROTR website, from which a number of the images come, and he states that as Wikipedia is a reference tool, he considers the use of the images to be fair, so long as copyright is correctly attributed to Egmont (which it is). He's also contributed information himself by posting it on the official site as requested (and has even used the WP for reference).
- It's listed as a GA, and has been through a peer review, although the only comments it attracted were automated.
- It's NPOV, and while it does make statements about the strip's popularity, I've tried wherever possible to show evidence of outside sources - newspapers, magazines - commenting on it. It goes without saying that it's stable, since it rarely receives edits from anyone other than myself and Chris.
- In addition to external references and citations, it contains a number of footnotes that expand on certain information without clogging up the body text.
In just about every way I can see, then, it seems to meet the criteria, but I've held off for a while so as to find as much info as I can, and tweak it here and there (and read it a hundred or so times to check for typos and the general flow of the text). I think it's just about ready to run the gauntlet now, so here it is. Seb Patrick 15:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support—Nicely written, except that there are a few snakes that need chopping up, such as "As such, it holds a unique place in British football folklore, demonstrated most clearly by the phrase "real Roy of the Rovers stuff" commonly used by football writers and commentators when describing displays of great skill or results that go against the odds, a reference to the dramatic storylines that became the strip's trademark". I've removed a few "alsos". Tony 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Heh, that sentence has been copyedited a few times in the last day or so. I did chop it into two sentences, but it got put back together, and as a good faith edit I didn't want to revert it. But I'll take another look at it, as it's still a bit awkward. Seb Patrick 06:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- (and thanks for your comments. I'm aware of the fact that I constantly overuse the word "also" when bridging points together, so it's good that someone's gone through with a fresh eye and had a look at that!) Seb Patrick 08:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Strong Support - beautifully-written piece, informative, concise and thorough. --IanIanSymes 10:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support Well-written and well-illustrated with excellent referencing and notes. -- Alias Flood 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Object. I must say that the quality of prose is quite good. But still, I see some problems. First of all, citation templates are not used in references(both inline and overall). Also, most of the references turn out to be notes from the author unsubstantiated by any reference. In a quick inspection, it is clear that a lot of them do indeed need references, and author notes won't do. If "overall references" are used, they should be provided inline. If possible, separate the references from the notes (i.e. use different sections). Dashes need to be fixed per WP:DASH. Reference no. 11 (ref-10) is self-referential. External link need to be eliminated from text as it can easily be provided in the external links section. There isn't a very good reason to have a list in "Spin-offs and merchandise" section. The "Others" section in "Regular features" looks too much trivia. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Well, to address your concerns :
- I didn't realise that citations had to use the template. As far as I can see, this isn't a required criterion for FACs. As the criteria request, however, <ref> tags are used. I thought that the template was an optional way of compiling references - and since the notes section (as outlined below) does not simply consist of citations, it's not really workable to use it.
- I wouldn't say that "most" of the references are notes from the author. Counting them, of twenty-four footnotes, six (#s 8, 11, 12, 13 and 19) are explanatory notes that expand upon the text, explaining information in such a way as to not intrude on the article with unnecessarily lengthy chunks of text. Some of the other notes do consist of quotations from articles, but when this is the case, they are also backed up with full citation of the source. Likewise, some of the citations (2, 3, 7 and 10) contain notes that explain what is being cited, but they're still citations.
- I'm not quite sure what you mean by "it is clear that a lot of them do indeed need references". Do you mean that you've found statements in the article that require citation? If so, please feel free to elaborate on that - but also bear in mind that I have pretty much exhausted every available resource in terms of professional writing about the series (at least in terms of what's available online, and one newspaper article from 1993 that I was able to find and date).
- If "overall references" are used, they should be provided inline. Just about every article listed in the "References" section is indeed mentioned in inline citations. The main exception is the Playing Years book, which was largely used to provide information on the plot history of the strip (as it was a compilation of fifty-years' worth of strips). If I cited every single instance that the book was used (i.e. most sentences in the "Plot" section), the citation list would edge towards the hundreds!
- As far as I know, it's not possible to have two sets of <ref> tags in the manner that you describe - hence the explanatory notes cannot be separated from the references. However, I don't feel this is necessarily problematic - certainly, I've read (and written) essays and theses that use this format for footnotes.
I see what you mean about the dashes, and that's a copyedit issue that clearly needs sorting. I'll see what I can do.
- Reference no. 11 (ref-10) is self-referential. I really don't understand what you mean by this. Or, rather, I don't understand why it's a problem. The note is there to explain why the article refers to both "Division One" and "Premier League" for those unfamiliar with the structural changes in English football, without imposing on the article for those who are familiar.
I see your point about the external links; in both instances, however, it's simply that they are companies that are identifiable by name but do not have Wikipedia entries to link to. However, I take your point, and I'll remove the links and place them below.
I agree that the list of books could probably trimmed, with the more notable ones incorporated into a paragraph of prose. That's something else I'll get onto.
The "Others" section really isn't trivia, I don't think. The thing is, the article is about both the *comic strip* Roy of the Rovers, and the weekly/monthly comic *publications* of the same name. Most of the article is spent discussing the strip itself (the one that began in Tiger and finished in Match of the Day, running through the life of the comic), but I think it is worth spending time discussing the other strips that were published in the comic, particularly as some of them rivalled RotR in terms of popularity. And I think that the succint information outlined for each means that, while it is a bulleted list, it just about breaks free of being simple list format.
- Actually, you're right, I've turned this into a handful of prose paragraphs instead. Seb Patrick 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment. I haven't gone through the improvements you have made, so please don't mind if I missed something. First of all, citations are not only used for completeness of references, they are also used to enforce consistancy in citation styles (so that other editors don't have any problems in adding citations later). Also, citation templates allow structured querries to be carried out by any SQL engine. See Persondata to see how that specific template can be used to extract specific info. Citation templates provide similar flexibility. Now, there is a basic difference between citations (references) and notes. The former provides proof, while the latter only an insight. When the number of notes increase a lot, it is advisable to separate them from references section for clarity. As an example, Rabindranath Tagore does that. This is not a requirement, and just a suggestion, as the way it currently makes it appear that the article is more referenced than it actually is. Oh, sorry for being not very alert. I meant reference number 11 uses another article as reference (dunno how I wrote that self-reference, which it isn't). Will point out the required references soon, as soon as I have the time to go through the article again. If I don't, my objection wouldn't count, right? And yes, give inline references from overall references also. It helps in clear understanding of the article. Inline citation is a strong requirement of the current FAC standards. BTW, seeing your response, it is clear you have fixed most issues. Good work. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment. Going through the article, I see that most of the work has been done, so I am striking off my objection. However I would still suggest the editors to use separate notes and citations as Rabindranath Tagore does. Incidently, that article also has references for notes, something this article also needs. Also, please standardize the citation formats. Its really important. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Okay, I'll look into the standardisation of the format, and into separating the two kinds of footnotes, as you outline, when I get the chance. Seb Patrick 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support. Very nicely written, interesting, good length, well-referenced. Just one fiddly thing: in the References section, you have commas after the names instead of periods/full stops. It means you end up with things like: "Acton, P, Jarman, C.M," where it's not completely clear (not at first glance) that there are two authors. I went to change it, but I don't know what style you prefer to use, so I'm leaving this comment instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Heh. That would simply be the way I was taught to write bibliographies at Uni. I always found it a confusing way of doing things myself, but it was so drilled into my head as the "right" way of doing things that I simply carried it over here. If separating by full-stops, semi-colons or anything else is acceptable on WP, then please feel free to change it. Seb Patrick 07:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment. I see what you mean, but I think the amount of images is justifiable in this article. There's no definite limits in the FUC (excellent abbreviation, by the way), just the vague "as little as possible". Other than the main annual pic at the top, all the images are small and low-res, and there's only ever one picture in a section, and not all the sections have one. I think removing "five or six", as you suggest, would be detrimental to the article. I think a compromise could be reached fairly easily, though. --IanIanSymes 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - in addition, I have - as outlined above - spoken with the webmaster of the official site, from which almost all the images derive, and sought his approval - on behalf of Egmont - to use the images. As I don't have written confirmation from Egmont themselves, it doesn't constitute full permission, but I think that, since there's no objection to their being used in a reference work, the fair use is clearly validated. Also, while I don't generally like playing the "yeah, but look at this article" game, I would ask you to look at how overwhelmingly Final Fantasy VIII was recently passed, and the number of FU images there as opposed to here. Seb Patrick 10:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- (I have, however, removed two of the images, reducing it to what I think is a more acceptable five. Also, the only images now contained in the article are ones that Egmont Fleetway hold the copyright for.) Seb Patrick 10:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think that, so long as those images have valid fair use criteria, this is OK. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]