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 04:21, 5 May 2007.

---

York City F.C.[edit]

I have been doing a lot of work on this article recently, and I believe it has been raised to meet the FA criteria. The article has had a peer review. Mattythewhite 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - Non-free images lack article-specific fair use rationale, per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#10. Pagrashtak 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've added the fair use rationale to the applicable images. Mattythewhite 07:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale must be article-specific. Pagrashtak 16:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done All sorted out for applicable images. Mattythewhite 19:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection struck. By the way, I noticed that one public domain image had fair use rationale added. Only non-free content needs fair use rationale. Pagrashtak 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - a lot of hard work has gone into the article and it's on a par with other featured F.C. articles such as Arsenal F.C. and Ipswich Town F.C. which is compliment to Mattythewhite as York City isn't such an easy subject for FA. Well done. The Rambling Man 17:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Object Needs a thorough copyedit (I'll help with this over the weekend), and the stadium section is under-referenced. Oldelpaso 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you be specific with the under-ref's? I advised that each sentence with the same ref could be un-ref'd and the whole paragraph could be dealt with in a single cite. However, I'll examine it too...! The Rambling Man 21:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Using the same ref once per paragraph makes sense, but there are several paragraphs with none. Examples I'd expect to be cited include the WWII damage and the various construction costs and resulting capacities. Looking at the ref (#22 as I write this) some of the sentences need totally rewriting - there are sentences which are lifted verbatim. One additional thing, I've just noticed that the current capacity isn't mentioned in the section. Oldelpaso 21:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Done I've done a copyedit of the Stadia section (as well as the whole of the article itself), it is more-well referenced and now gives the current capacity. Mattythewhite 08:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Some more things I noticed while doing some copyediting on the History section:

  • York won the Fourth Division with a record 101 points, the first team to do so in the Football League - the reference does not support the assertion that York were the first team to get 101 points.

   Done Reference given. Mattythewhite 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Batchelor promised the club much, but after more financial controversy regarding funds promised to City which went undelivered, - this needs a citation, and ought to be more specific; "promised the club much" is very vague.

   Done Reference given and more description added. Mattythewhite 20:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last paragraph of the history section lists several managers with little context. It ought to focus on what happened to the club rather than who they hired and fired. Oldelpaso 20:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Done I think I've got this sorted out. Mattythewhite 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Prose has now gone thoroughly through the wringer, changed to support. Oldelpaso 19:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object, sorry. Agree with need for overall copyedit, but here's a selection of specific issues from just one part of the article:see changed opinion below --Dweller 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. photo captions need years for context

 Done Dates for images now stated. Mattythewhite 19:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. "traditional kit" caption is ambiguous - define "traditional"; the club's had various colours down the years, as the article explains

 Done Changed "traditional" to "original". Mattythewhite 11:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. more than one Stadium in club's history suggests section should be called "Stadia"

 Done Renamed "Stadium" section to "Stadia". Mattythewhite 11:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. which year was "York City's FA Cup run, which included games against Arsenal and then Liverpool, as well as a replay against Liverpool in front of a crowd of 43,000"?

 Done I've given the season this Cup run took placce. Mattythewhite 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Parag beginning "The capacity of Bootham Crescent" needs a copyedit.

 Done I think I've got this sorted out. Mattythewhite 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Various problems in parag beginning "A planned move to Huntington Stadium had fallen". Quirky English, no explanation why ground needed to be bought, wikilink KitKat for people who dont get the Nestle connection. It also confusingly overlaps with the next section.

 Done Rewritten this sentence so it makes more sense, wikilinked KitKat. Mattythewhite 11:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#New Stadium more logically should fall into the Stadia section as a subsection

1. "By then" - by when?

 Done Date given for when they have to move. Mattythewhite 11:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What Nestle site?

 Done More detailed description of sites given. Mattythewhite 17:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. "the favoured York Central site" implies it's previously been mentioned

 Done I've reworded that so it makes more sense. Mattythewhite 12:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. New Stadium section reads like a bulletin board that's been updated every so often by different people, rather than flowing prose. Lose some detail of aborted moves into a new main article on the subject?

 Done I've sorted out the whole of that section. Mattythewhite 12:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of comments on just a small chunk of the article. You've done the hard work with the referencing, but now some further thought and a thorough copyedit will take this to FA. Cheers, --Dweller 08:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of work's gone into this over the weekend. I'll find some time asap to review the article as a whole. Hoping to support. --Dweller 10:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of work's gone in to this, but I still don't see evidence of it having received a third party copyedit. This is essential. Some specific objections just from the first few lines, all of which would be caught by a non expert who can copyedit:

• Line one - is a club singular or plural. I'd go for "is" for club.
• "as far as" - "as high as"
• "have enjoyed more success" - than what? It's the start of a paragraph. And the last one was about the stadium.
• As far as I know, Old Trafford have never won a trophy

Sorry. Please let me know when the article's had a third-party copyedit. --Dweller 15:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to support Well done, Matty (and collaborators). An enormous amount of effort's gone into this and you've kept cool in the face of my pedantry. I think it's an excellent article. It's good to have "smaller" clubs represented in the galaxy of FAs. Contrary to some perceptions, not everyone in England supports one of the "big" clubs... and there's huge amounts of interest, tradition and passion (if not silverware) outside of the usual suspects. --Dweller 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support fantastic article, brilliant research. Only suggestions are that there should be a link to York City F.C. season 2006-07 and that the 'notable players' section could perhaps use a little bit more subjectivity - for instance: players who went on to bigger clubs, greater fame, international teams rather than just emphasising the number of appearances.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Me677 (talk • contribs).

Subjectivity is a no-no - see WP:NPOV. --Dweller 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - on par with other football FAs; great job considering subject matter. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very good article, and it is well-sourced. --Carioca 04:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hugely improved from before the peer review, deserves featured status. Qwghlm 10:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[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.