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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [1].

Sunderland A.F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): Sunderland06 (talk)

This article failed it's previous FAC because of prose and tense issues. However, I think through the feedback from the FAC, and a copyedit from User:Skomorokh to resolve the tense issues, this article is now ready for another shot at FAC. Comments welcome, and I'll get round to responding ASAP. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot to mention, I am competing in the WikiCup. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images have not changed since the last FAC, which Awadewit had reviewed. Concur with her assessment. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - As someone who opposed at the last FAC, I think it's looking much better. Here are some minor issues I saw while reading most of the way through.

I'll come back and have another look after these are checked, but for now I'm very happy with the progress that has been made here. Tenses, a key issue last time, are consistently plural throughout, and the entire piece feels more refined for the most part. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redundancy: "Sunderland moved to their present stadium, Stadium of Light". Notice the double stadium? Done - Changed first usage to "ground".
  • Supporters and rivalries: Two 2007-08 Premier League links in the section. Done - Delinked second mention.
  • Nicknames: Comma after "received the majority of the 11,000 votes"? Done - Added comma.
  • Second paragraph of Nicknames: Is the quote covered in the subsequent reference? Just checking. Comment - I would think these match up, as bishopwearmouth is a relatively small area, and the book focuses around the same years as the Napoleonic Wars, it would seem suitable to mention the defense system. Also the Sunderland Loyal Volunteers article uses the same book to source a similar thing.
  • "Sunderland were also known as the 'Bank of England club'". Getting rid of that one word would make this a bit tighter. Done - Removed "also".
  • Link Drumaville consortium? Also flip "dub" and "jokingly" in the last sentence. Done - Switched them around.
  • There is already a link in a previous section, which I missed before. I did make a capitalization fix, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all done. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this article was tantalisingly close to FA at its previous nomination on which I commented and during which I offered a little copy-editing. Tenses with teams (and all manner of collective nouns) can be a pain, but I think that this version satisfies all the FA criteria. There will always be room for tweaks and improvements (in all featured articles—after all this is Wikipedia), but I see no reason not to promote this good contribution to a featured one. I would not be the slightest bit embarrassed to see this one the Main Page—quite the opposite; I would be pleased—and this would be a small reward for the hard work and dedication that has been put into this article. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support- I supported the last FAC, which failed due to a lot of issues with the article holding it back. Currently these issues have been delt with and the article has been prepared well for this time round, no reason to oppose. Mackemfixer (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comment -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

Reference formatting found up to speed.--TRUCO 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure as to how I'd manage this except from modifying the template. However, it is a masively used template so it would go down very kindly. What do you think? Sunderland06 (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the benefits to readers pointed out by the MOS are too good to pass up. You might want to bring notice to the WikiProject and the Template to discuss it, so far the discussions on the Project's and the Template's talk page show a lack of wide discussion in this area. Jappalang (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was finalised at the last FAC that the use of flags does not breach MOS:FLAGS#Use of flags for sportspeople. Peanut4 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of flags is not the issue here. The issue is that on the flags' first use, they must be accompanied by the names of the countries. This is for accessibility and clarity to the readers as outlined in the guidelines. What is asked for is to put the country's name next to the flags, and this was not done. Jappalang (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but MOS:FLAGS#Country_can_sometimes_be_omitted_when_flag_re-used covers the fact that country names do not need to be used alongside flags in lists such as sports teams and so are unnecessary here. Peanut4 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the very first line in the guideline you quote: "The country name may be omitted if a flag appears with its country name earlier in a list or table." The flags did not appear with a country name before the list of players; hence they must be named. Jappalang (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Time to re-write that MOS in that case, as it's not sustainable when it comes to most sports. The flags already link and alt text to the country — CHANDLER#10 — 09:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is not the problem; the guideline is there to make the article accessible to a greater audience, including those who are blind, color blind, and unable to tell apart icon-sized flags. Forcing them to navigate away from the article just to know what the graphic represents is not desired. Jappalang (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty flawed imo, because if the people aren't able to tell the flags apart or are blind what good would it do them?
Most of the times the country flag isn't needed to be there, it gives a little depth, but they're not vital, so even if you can't tell what the flag is you don't lose much, I think rather people will start to find it strange why the country name which has nothing to do with the list in reality always is mentioned. — CHANDLER#10 — 21:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**It's difficult to get the verbs right with teams, but although I can happily accept "Sunderland" as being plural, perhaps even at a stretch "team", I can't accept "club" as being anything other than singular. Thus I'm not happy with this kind of thing: "The club were sponsored ...", or "... the club were once again implicated ...", or "... the club were promoted ...".

      • I'll probably get round to this later, however it means replacing it with "they", "their", but I guess it has to stay consistently plural throughout the article. Cheers for the comments. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just got caught in an edit conflict with you, so could you say when you've finished making changes. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bearing the same name in a different language as Benfica's Estádio da Luz ("Stadium of Light") in Lisbon, Portugal, Sunderland's ground originally held 42,000 supporters; the capacity was increased to 49,000 after redevelopment in 2000." I think I understand what the first part of the sentence is trying to say, but it seems unnecessarily awkward. The second part of the sentence, however, seems to have no relation at all to the first.
    • "This increased the pool of players, thereby enlarging the amount of funds the club could draw on." Seems to be a non-sequitor. In what way did enlarging the pool of players increase the funds available?
    • "... at that time the rent for use of the ground was £10." It would good to have a present day conversion for these monetary amounts. How much was £100 worth in 1904? Or £18,000 in 1949? I've done a couple as examples in the Early years and league triumphs section.
      • Cheers for that, I'd have had no idea how to do it otherwise. :) Sunderland06 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done all these, I've had a play around with the rounding parameter, so some figures might need a slight tweak.
--Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More