The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:04, 28 September 2010 [1].

Everton F.C.[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Featured article candidates/Everton F.C.

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: SenorKristobbal, all listed projects: spoken Wikipedia, Football, England, Merseyside

Firstly, the article has unsourced parts tagged by others and some unsourced paragraphs

Undue weight on recent seasons, when nothing special has happened, and more successful 1960s and early years are not mentioned in much detail
- Ilikeeatingwaffles has addressed this.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy reliance on primary sources when many 3rd party refs are available for a major club's history
Toffeeweb while looking reasonable for an amateur grassroots site is not preferred under the WP:WIAFA of high-quality RS vis a vis history texts
- Started to remove toffeeweb refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other non-RS include footballeconomy.com, bluekipper, etc
Some refs are not consistently formatted, eg italics in newspapers
list of famous fans is undue weight. Most players with even a handful of games have more impact than some pop star who attends matches, and this can be verified per weight in newspapers
- Removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never understood the need to have world cup players. They aren't particularly notable for Everton, some players may have only played a few games for Everton, then played 1 group game in the World Cup finals. How does that make them a notable former player when compared to hall of famers?
Apart from that, the work done already seems to have alleviated the majority of yellowmonkey's concerns. I think a couple more of the toffeeweb refs could be replaced but the majority of the primary ones are neccessary ones in my opinion: links to supporters clubs can't really be anything but primary. I agree that the four primary sources used in the history section could be replaced bu third party book refs, but I don't doubt their factual accuracy, nor the accuracy of the article. Woody (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree with above-raised concerns about sourcing, as there appears to be some unsourced chunks throughout, and wholly unreferenced paragraphs in a few places. Also, some concerns about short-paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria of concern are sourcing, undue weight YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per comments by YellowMonkey, Woody and Cirt. Above those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 00:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – There's simply too much unreferenced writing for an FA. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not a single book used, sections with no refs. Sandman888 (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.