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 User:SandyGeorgia 17:26, 12 January 2009 [1].

Sunderland A.F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): Sunderland06 (talk)

I've been working on this article for a while, it passed its GAC about a month ago. The article has been through three peer reviews, and several copyedits and now, I believe it now meets the FA criteria. I would like to nominate my first featured article candidate. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I read it and loved the prose. However, there are some footnotes which need en dashes (such as numbers one through forty-seven), so I would suggest reviewing those. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

There's more for me to look at, but this should give you some ideas for polishing the writing further. It's pretty good now, though, and I enjoyed reading it. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back for more.
  • Inconsistent hyphenation of "then record" in Recent highs and lows. Done - Used hyphen both times.
  • Ref 66 shouldn't have a space after punctuation. Done - Removed comma.
  • Colours and crest: "and also the land the Stadium of Light lies on". Word isn't necessary after and. Also, I'd delink the two stadiums here, seeing as they are linked in the next section, which is about stadiums. Done - Removed word, and delinked stadiums.
  • Stadiums: Change comma after "at Hendon Board School" to a semi-colon. Done
  • Problem sentence: "It was opened on 10 September 1898, and Sunderland played the same day against Liverpool, which Sunderland opened with a win." Done - Reworded.
  • "though albeit in a different language." I thought that albeit meant though; don't think the two next to each other works. Done - Removed although.
  • Supporters and rivalries: "including from; America, Australia, Canada and Ireland." Semi-colon could be a colon. I know I'm being picky on the punctuation, but getting this right really elevates an article. Done - Changed to colon.
  • Don't understand this sentence: "the jury stated it was described as 'like a scene from the film Braveheart' by some." What jury? And the "by some" part should be moved, perhaps to "described by some." Done - Reworded a bit.
I'm stopping here for now. I see some other problems in this section, including "Sunderland have number of supporters" and "and costs $3 as 28 November 2008." Also, is Banning Orders commonly capitalized? And "The Sunderland fans were voted as the loudest ground in the 2007–08 season..." needs work. Ealdgyth's source concerns should be addressed as well. Sorry I couldn't finish, but there are only so many issues I'm willing to list at once. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if they were missed, but my stopping point showed some problems that haven't been fixed. Maybe I should have made them more explicit. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you highlight the issues I did not resolve, I will get straight onto them. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're now in italics. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Thanks for finding these, now replaced. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Bert Kassies probably knows more about UEFA than UEFA themselves, his site isn't affiliated with UEFA. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of sources should be established per the information in the link given (above) by Ealdgyth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the prose and linking is smoother. The lead alone provides plenty of fodder for comment:

Sunderland Association Football Club is a professional association football club based in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, England, which competes in the Premier League. Sunderland have won six First Division titles, in 1892, 1893, 1895, 1902, 1913, and most recently in 1936 (see Years in English football).

Instead of this:

Sunderland Association Football Club is a professional association football club based in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, England, which competes in the Premier League. Sunderland have won six First Division titles, in 1892, 1893, 1895, 1902, 1913, and most recently in 1936.

Remember that there's a prominent navbox at the top of each Year in English football article. Year-in-X links can also be placed in the "See also" section, with more helpful information as you please that would otherwise clutter the main text.

Try to locate a sports editor who is unfamiliar with this article, for a good massage of the entire text.

and their performance [in the previous season] led The Times to describe them as "a wonderfully fine team" - my sense is the bracketed bit is redundant. Can the author confirm? Done - Removed redundancy.
"Mackems" is sorta sprung on readers in Financial troubles and cup success section without being explained. I'd settle for it being mentioned in lead but it isn't there. Done - Changed to "club"
The bit on the Friendship trophy looks odd stuck there way down the bottom. I think it would go better after the other rivalry info in the main text. Comment - The reason it is under the honours is because it is an actual trophy. It does not have its own article, so needs a little further explainling.
One last thing, there should be a space between the p ad the number in all the book refs. I'd do it myself but I need to sleep now. Nearly there :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Added all the spaces, and thank you very much for the copyedit. :)

I placed italics for the unresolved issues above, like you asked. Don't know if my initial message was missed up there, but I didn't want to take any chances. Read them carefully and the problems will become clear. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying, I resolved the issues and just forgot to reply above. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of them were still not done, but I took care of them myself, along with a few other tweaks. Here is my final round, at last. Have to get moving here, because this is the second-oldest FAC up at the moment. Normally I keep my posts together, but I'm putting this at the bottom so it doesn't get missed.
  • Statistics and records: "with Bobby Gurney being the record goalscorer...". Noun-plus-ing structure, which is more common for candidates than I originally thought. Try a semi-colon, then "Bobby Gurney is the record goalscorer...". Done
  • "making 36 appearances for Republic of Ireland." Perhaps "for the Republic of Ireland." Done - Added the.
  • The two transfer fee amounts need non-breaking spaces between the pound amount and million, like this: $5.6 million. The edit screen shows the correct formatting, with the exception that us Americans have dollar signs on our keyboards. Another one is needed in Sponsorship. Done
  • Nicknames: Change the semi-colon in the second sentence to a colon, perhaps? Done Giants2008 (17-14) 16:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously done, but was commented again in Graham Colm's concerns. So I'm not sure which version should remain. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is no big deal. I am happy to let the nominator decide. Graham Colm Talk 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose- the prose is still not of FA standard. The section on stadiums is well-written but the efforts of , I guess, other writers spoils the article. Here are some examples:

think the whole article would benefit from a fresh editor giving it a thorough edit. Graham Colm Talk 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but these are just examples, please see the edits I made to the article a few moments ago for more, and this: By the 1990s, the stadium was no longer large enough, and with no room for possible expansion, the Taylor Report had also brought new regulations into football stadiums, so Roker Park's capacity was continually decreased. - Is a common problem in the article. The reader has to know that the report called for all-seater stadiums. Without knowing this the reader gets lost. And, why "also", who else brought in new regulations? And, "so" is a very weak word. Graham Colm Talk 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked this part around. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your point w.r.t. AGF is a valid one. Although, FAC is not meant to be Peer Review, I am willing to copy edit the article tomorrow afternoon, (GMT), if Sunderland is happy about this, I think the article needs about another two hours of work. I think Sunderland can't see the wood for the trees, (this is a compliment of sorts ;-). Graham. Graham Colm Talk 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graham, your kindness and dedication to FAC is astounding. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to support. Graham Colm Talk 18:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues. Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • "thanks to a goal scored by Ian Porterfield"
Sounds informal, I think this sort of phrasing is not seen in encyclopeadic texts, except in the credits.
Changed "thanks" to "due".
Early years and league triumphs
  • "This helped to solve financial problems and increased the pool of players."
A bit mysterious since no problems were mentioned in the first place, perhaps it will be better to instead mention how it helped to alleviate such issues without mentioning "problems", e.g. "This increased the pool of players, thereby enlarging the amount of funds the club could draw on."
Changed to that.
  • "From the late 1880s, Sunderland had a brief rivalry with Sunderland Albion, until the latter club's demise in 1892. Ironically, it was James Allan who founded Albion following dissatisfaction with the way that Sunderland A.F.C. was being run, this was due in part to professionalism creeping into the game."
Was there anything interesting about their rivalry? This sounds trivial in a "A and B were rivals, but B died in xxxx." way. Since James Allan was the connection, it might be better to bring his role to the front at the start.
Suggestion: "However, James Allan grew dissatisfied with the changing attitude in the club towards professionalism and left. He founded Sunderland Albion, and the two Sunderland clubs had a rivalry that lasted until Albion's demise in 1892."
Changed to that.
  • "was described as the Championship of the World title match."
Just querying, I presume this is from Days, is it he who called it that, or did he phrase it in the passive without naming the parties that named the match as such?
[5] and [6] also call it the "World Championship".
It would be best to cite this sentence to Days and Hearts FC to allow verification (I have no idea of London Hearts's qualifications as a reliable site). Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cited from Hearts website.
  • "involved in a payment scandal payment scandal involving"
Repetition of "involve", any way to vary the words?
I have changed "involved" to "embroiled". Graham Colm Talk
Further league championship titles
  • "come to The Double."
Would it be better to just state what it was? i.e. "come to winning the league title and the FA Cup in the same season."
Changed to that.
  • "The Wearsiders escaped relegation from the First Division by ..."
The who?
Wearsiders is maybe a local term, changed to "club"
Financial troubles and cup success
  • "Sunderland only required a draw"
Would it be wiser to say "Sunderland required only a draw"?
Changed to that.
  • "However, Chelsea were victorious against Sunderland, and went on to win a game in hand 7–0 to clinch promotion, finishing ahead of Sunderland on goal average."
The first clause seems redundant until one reads "in hand", which might confuse a US reader (who I think is more familiar with "a bird in hand in worth two in the bush") when mixed in like that...
Suggestion (in addition to the preceding note): "Sunderland required only a draw for their final game against promotion rivals Chelsea, who had another game left to play after this match, to secure promotion. However, they were defeated, and Chelsea finished their last game 7–0 to clinch promotion, finishing ahead of Sunderland on goal average."
Changed to that.
  • "After the close call in the previous season, in 1964 the club was promoted to Division One after finishing in second place."
The "previous season" seems redundant after coming so soon after talking about it. Furthermore, I think the sentence can be phrased as "After the close call, the club was promoted to Division One in 1964 after finishing in second place."
Changed to that
  • "won the game thanks to Jimmy Montgomery who saved two attempts to score in quick succession by Peter Lorimer."
Like I said earlier, possibly informal in tone for an encyclopaedia.
Adjusted.
  • "This often described as the most famous save, in an FA Cup Final, of all time."
I believe either an "is" or "was" is missing here.
Added "is" Graham Colm Talk
  • "As a result of this League Cup final, every time Sunderland and Norwich meet, the Friendship Trophy is contested."
Would it not be better to integrate that Friendship Trophy sub-section here? Right now, it just leads to sudden confusion on why they have to do that, forcing readers to break away to that sub-section and return.
Integrated it in.
  • "but were relegated immediately and returned to the First Division."
Instead of stating this, state their end of the season position, like "but ended up xx from the bottom and were relegated back to the First Division." Otherwise, it might invite suspicion to non-footers.
Changed to that.
  • "On leaving, former Sunderland player Len Shackleton said "There will never be another place like Roker"."
Is it too matter of factly stated? How about:
"Bearing fond memories of the stadium, former Sunderland player Len Shackleton said, "There will never be another place like Roker"."
Changed to that.
Recent highs and lows
  • "Sunderland returned to the Premier League as champions in 1999 with ..."
I think it should be made clear that "Sunderland returned to the Premier League as First-Division champions in 1999 ..."
Changed to that.
Colours and crest
  • "until they adopted to a red and white halved strip in 1884."
I believe "to" is unnecessary.
Yes, left over from one of my edits I think. Removed it. Graham Colm Talk
  • "In 1977 the badge was changed, but still included the ship, football and the background of red and white stripes."
Why does the caption for the badge state "used from 1972 until changed in 1997"? Which statement is inaccurate, the caption or the sentence in the text?
Caption, changed to 1977.
Stadiums
  • Since they had seven stadiums, then Stadium of Light and Roker Park should be "See also" articles rather than "Main articles", right?
Indeed, changed to see also.
  • "Sunderland then moved to Newcastle Road, which became the longest serving ground to the club up to that point."
They moved in and it became their longest serving ground "up to that point" (the time when they moved in)?
It was their stadium for the longest before they moved to Roker Park.
Putting it chronologically, "Sunderland moved to Newcastle Road in 1886. It became their longest serving ground up to 1886." That is what I was thinking when I read the sentence. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to that.
There seems to be some confusion over my issue, and I apologise for not making myself clear. Look at the sentence (in its original form, and my analyzed break-down). It does not make sense. How can the club move to Newcastle road in 1886 and have it (Newcastle Road) be their longest serving ground in the same year? That was my problem with the sentence (hence, my thoughts above, which I should have clarified was a doubt on the logic). After looking through it again, I changed it.[7] I feel the mention of Newcastle Road as "the longest serving ground" before Roker Park was trivial, including it would have made an unwieldy sentence. Is this sentence accurate to the original intent (sans the "longest serving ground" before Roker)? Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Received word that it is fine.[8] Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nearing the turn of the century, Sunderland needed a bigger stadium and moved to Roker Park, returning to Roker."
Sounds a tad weird "to Roker Park, returning to Roker."
Suggestion: "Near the turn of the century, Sunderland needed a bigger stadium. They returned to Roker and set up home in Roker Park."
Changed to that.
  • "The stadium's capacity increased to 50,000 ... On 8 March 1933, Roker Park had the highest ever attendance at a Sunderland match, 75,118 ..."
I have the inkling that 75,118 was due to over-crowding. Either that, or the stadium underwent further expansion. This needs to be mentioned for clarity.
Overcrowding, yes. Mentioned now.
  • "The Taylor Report was released in January 1990 following the disaster at the Hillsborough Stadium which resulted in 96 deaths."
The sentence as is seems to present no connection to the preceding sentence.
"In January 1990, the Taylor Report was released after overcrowding at the Hillsborough Stadium resulted in 96 deaths, an incident known as the Hillsborough Disaster."
Changed to that.
Supporters and rivalries
  • "different supporters groups, including from the ..."
"supporter groups from various countries, including the ..."
Changed to that.
  • ""It was violence and disorder on a massive scale""
I think quotes are to be cited again, even if it is in the middle of a chunk of sentences cited to a source.
Referenced again.
  • "Like some other"
Either "some" can be dropped or it can be replaced with "several", which has a more precise definition.
Removed "other".
The issue is not with "other" (which would be correct), but "some", which connotates an imprecise quantity and could be a weasel in disguise. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added in "several".
  • "to prevent Albion from benefiting from the gate receipts."
Suggestion: "to not benefit Albion with a share of the gate receipts."
Changed to that.
Statistics and records
  • Although not extreme, this section still has a hint of being a list of records thrown out.
Nicknames
  • "They also have other nicknames which include, The Rokerites,"
Suggestion: "They also have other nicknames, such as The Rokerites,"
Changed to that.
  • "He said "fled from the howling of an approaching black cat, convinced by the influence of the full moon and a warming dram or two that it was the devil incarnate"."
Huh??? Is this supposed to be "He was said to have "fled from ...". By the way, what is a "warming dram"?
I think a warming dram may be a glass of whisky.
Okay with the "warming dram", but what about the start of the sentence (read it from the previous line: Manned by volunteers, one of whom was Dunn. He said "fled from the ...")? Who fled? Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, the editor who added this must have just took it as a direct quote.
After finding this, I am of the belief that the editor left out some words. I have corrected the sentence to the form I mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "took a black cat to the 1937 FA Cup final in his top pocket as a good luck charm; it worked as Sunderland brought home"
Let us not propogate any superstitions here: "took a black cat in his top pocket as a good luck charm to the 1937 FA Cup final in which Sunderland brought home" Either that, or attribute whoever claimed it worked in the text.
Changed to that.
Managers
  • I see no point to this section. The list is a near replica of the List article. Take out the list and integrate this section into Players, turning that section into a "Players and managers" section.
Merged.
The list (table) is still there. Is there any defense to why it (a full listing of managers) should be in this article when another article (List of Sunderland A.F.C. managers) is readily available for reading? Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you meant to merge it. Its not the full list of managers, just a cut down version who have managed 50 league games.
It might be reduced, but what is the point of the table? I would not mind a talk on notable managers of the club (by means of trophies, recorded popularity, or controversies) but here we have an arbitrary cut-off of 50 games. I think it makes sense to follow the way it is done with players (although I do not totally agree with it) for consistency's sake. Have a "Current manager" entry, and let those who want more go to the List to find out. Notable managers would have been mentioned in some manner in the club history or records above. Jappalang (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to just current manager, but I'm not sure of its format.
Format seems fine, since that section is a short list of current members. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Friendship Trophy
  • Like I said, this could be integrated much earlier.
I integrated it into the history part.

On the whole, a very good read for a football subject, but with the above niggles. Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the afternoon, thanks for the review, and a also a huge thanks to Graham for his copyedits. Sunderland06 (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One last issue: as have been said earlier, but seems to have been overlooked, there are still violations of MOS:FLAG. It is not clear to me why flag icons are used in the Infobox. For the player list (which should have been the one doing this instead of the manager's list, now axed), the flags do not have the names next to them. Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the flags from the infobox and player list.
If anyone tries to bring back the flags, please do refer them to MOS:FLAG. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the resolution of the above issues, I believe we have a general, concise, and comprehensive article of a football club. The ideas conveyed by the language flow smoother than at the start of the FAC. I think all issues (including sources) have been resolved and this article is worthy to be of featured status. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have forgotten to completely review the lede in my judgment. To make up for this, I have copyedited it to what I think would have rectified my possible issues with it (scattered ideas, awkwardness of certain thoughts in certain places, etc). Jappalang (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status - the prose issues seem to have been resolved, but there is still one problem with a source. I think it would be a good idea to invite reviewers with unstruck comments to revisit the FAC. Graham Colm Talk 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted Oldelpaso, Giants2008 and Tony1, I'll get round to the source tomorrow evening as I'm heading of to sleep. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is now done with sources provided by Jappalang.

Comment (sorry I didn't notice this sooner) in the Colours and crest section, the first mention of a ship is when you say it's "still included". For the benefit of those who can't see it in the image, could you add a bit more detail to (presumably?) the "upper part of the Sunderland coat of arms", and perhaps clarify it as the coat of arms of the city of Sunderland. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Struway2 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared this up now, cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy - To be honest, I'm quite disappointed with a few things that I'm seeing, even after heavy copy-editing.

No it isn't - it's a typo, probably mine. Graham Colm Talk

After seeing problems like this after the amount of work that has been done here, it leads me to believe that this still needs more time. Therefore, I'm going to oppose. Sorry, but I have to call them like I see them, and I don't think it's ready to be promoted now. If this gets archived, a few more weeks should be enough to polish the article sufficiently. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Major tense issues", please note that British English allows the use of singular and plural contructions for a proper noun such as companies, organizations, and football clubs.(British Council, American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement) In general, there is not so much a constant tense to be called for, but a rendering based on the context that the subject is to be expressed in. To expect "Sunderland" or "Sunderland A.F.C." to be only referred to as either singular, or plural in a British English article could be an erroneous expectation. Jappalang (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the flags, they are being adding back into the squad list as they do not violate the specific manual of style for squad lists. However, they should still not be used in the infobox, just clearing this up. Sunderland06 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does not supercede the requirement for the country names on first use of the flags. As previously stated, if the flags are wanted in the player list, then the countries have to be named beside the flags. Jappalang (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a second look at the article, I find myself agreeing with Giants2008, and have to go with a reluctant Oppose. It is getting close to FA standard. It is incrementally improving, and has improved over the course of this FAC, but there are still sufficient rough edges to make me think that more time to refine it is required than an FAC usually grants. There's still an element of proseline, and there are frequent abrupt changes of subject between sentences, which could have better flow. In terms of things other than prose, I think the Supporters and rivalries section needs a bit of an overhaul. Sunderland are a well-supported club who have maintained their support through lean times, but not a global "big name" like Arsenal or Real Madrid. Their support is consequently located primarily in north-east England, but the section doesn't really give that impression. Unless I'm mistaken, the Tyne-Wear derby is a much bigger deal than matches against Middlesbrough, and this should be reflected in the text. The part about Sunderland Albion is certainly interesting, but should not have a larger portion of the section than more enduring rivalries. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the captaincy and vice captaincy in the squad list: The Kieran Richardson article says "He has captained Sunderland on occasion, when regular captain Dean Whitehead has not started the match." So is Richardson or Whitehead the captain? Also is there such a position as "vice-captain" and are you able to provide a source for Andy Reid being given this position? --Jameboy (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't actually find a source for who is the club's captain and vice captain. I think it is Dean Whitehead, but can't be sure, Kieran Richardson was also captain while Whitehead was injured. I think it might be worth just removing the captain and vice captain parts from the list altogether. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not trying to rub it in, but we can't have this many issues up top after so much has been done.

Done - Changed to had. I understand this FAC probably won't pass at the moment. I feel a lot of improvements have been made, but should've been done at peer review really. However, I'll keep sticking in at this article, and renominate it in the future. Cheers for all the help. Sunderland06 (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the lede, it was my fault, really (see my comments above). Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Spot-checks in one small section reveal significant prose issues. I've given hints below as to how to overcome these. I think this one should be withdrawn and resubmitted after at least a few weeks; then it should go through without too much trouble. Reviewers have been put to far too much work here, and basic problems remain.

Not yet of a professional standard. Sorry. Tony (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two much work? (yes, spelling intentional, just for you ;) ) I thought reviewers did this for pleasure, just like everyone else? If they don't wish to collaborate then they are under no obligation. I must say, looking above, it seems some have been exceptional: GrahamColm appears to have been especially helpful, putting his money where his mouth is by actually doing some work. The JPStalk to me 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is nice when reviewers help out. However, they are under no obligation to do so; the purpose of this process is to determine whether the article in question is ready to be promoted. FAC is meant for fine-tuning, it is not a build-a-Featured-Article service. Our reviewer resources are stretched thin. I review for pleasure also, but I don't want to turn the FAC into a peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise now this article was not ready to be submitted. Most of this stuff should have came up at peer review, and I'd be happy to withdraw this and resubmit it in a couple of weeks. Sunderland06 (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing; please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the FAC template in place until the bot goes through. Hope to see you back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 12 January 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