Talk:Sunderland A.F.C.

ERROR IN ARTICLE

Thgere is an error in the article. It says that Sunderland held the record for the longest run in the First Division, staying there for 68 years until they lost the record to Arsenal in 1958. At that point Arsenal had only been in the First Division for just over 50 years. The record was not lost until Arsenal overtook Sunderland in the 1960's or early 1970's.

Please see below in the section entitled "Record run in the first division". I am onto it. Cheers. p.s. the audio version needs to be updated too. Gusssss (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dick Malone?

Currently on the notable players list, never heard of him. Does he really exist?

Will remove and then if someone proves otherwise they can add it again

--Rboxer 09:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dick Malone most certainly did exist. Full back 1973 cup final. SAFCjl 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Yet again more vandalism, doesnt anyone have anything better to do, i changed what i could see im sure there is more. Sigh...

Yep, I changed it yet again. Even after a 5-1 pantsing of us, they have to do it, if nothing else the derby result proved once and for all who is obsessed with whom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagan Lad (talk • contribs) 05:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Entrance music

Can anyone tell me the titles of the music that Sunderland come on to the pitch with? thanks --Screen42 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dance of the Knights by Prokofiev followed by Elevation by U2. Elysium 73 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--Screen42 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to add this to the main article - It is part of the article for Dance of the Knights, but is not mentioned in the Sunderland AFC article. Could someone possibly add a section on this?

23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ready To Go

Veinor - why do you keep removing the link to Ready To Go from the external links? its probably the most popular Sunderland AFC website and its run by fans so hardly a "spam" link

Vandalism

To all those people who constantly vandalise this page, please use uncyclopedia instead. That's what it's there for.

The front page currently has a line that says: "Sunderland's best friends and bum chums Newcastle United." I tried to edit it but as an unregistered user could not. Maybe someone will want to change this yeah?83.61.2.236 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC). UPDATE: It's been changed back - well done!83.61.2.236 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Something I've just removed from the page

*Raikonnen is a bit of a bellend, and as such, supports a woefully poor football team: Sunderland.

Hilarious. Not.--Rboxer 11:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Squad List

Sunderland and Newcastle are the only two Premier League clubs who have not adopted to standardised squad list template Template:Fs_player and there is a drive from the people on WikiProject:Football to get this done. The only problem is that we would lose the "Date Joined Club" and "Previous Club" fields, and we would be stuck with GK, DF, MF, CF positions. What do people think. Should we adopt the standard, or keep it as it is? John the mackem 00:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time there were three clubs that used an alternatve template, including West Ham United F.C.. That was until recently. I was in favour of not standardising as the previous template provided more information, position descriptions were more accurate (what happens if someone plays RB and CM???) and I believed that a real football fan wants to see that kind of info at a quick glance, without having to go through every players' individual pages. But I felt like I was fighting a losing battle against those who felt standardisation mattered. However, I found a compromise I could be happy with by retaining the information in a 'current season' page, the current one being West Ham United F.C. 2005-2006. I have placed a link to this page just below the standard template on the West Ham main page. Let me know what you think. At the moment there is only statistical information on the page, but it could include more information, in keeping with other West Ham United F.C. by season pages, such as transfers, results and general 'events' that happen during the season. Spyrides 17:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Sunderland also have a 'current season' page; I created it a while ago and I have been trying to keep it up to date as often as possible: 2005-06_Season_for_Sunderland_A.F.C.. Not quite as detailed in terms of player stats as the West Ham one.
    John the mackem 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Has Riera joined?

I read that Arnau Riera, FC Barcelona B player has joined Sunderland. Heres a link: [1]

Past Players/Noteable Players

This section is very poorly constructed. Not being a Sunderland fan I couldn't really say who should and shouldn't be there, but it needs some kind of structuring. Perhaps listing by the order they left the club, and displaying the years during which they were at the club and the flag of their nationality? See other club's former players pages if you are unsure of how to do this. Djdannyp 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Roy Keane

There has yet to be an Official announncement from the club to say he is manager, so why is he up? It has tey to be confirmed.

It's been announced, but he has yet to sign a contract. Until then, I think his name should be removed from the infobox. NaLaochra 19:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

He's all over the official website and is listed as the manager.

Doing an Kyle Weber?

To the user that keeps adding this:

Doing a Sunderland
As a result of Sunderland's somewhat unusual footballing history, the phrase "Doing a Sunderland" has been independently coined in many areas, often with wildly different meanings.
It can include a surprisingly good cup run, a reference to Sunderland's 1973 FA Cup win against Leeds, which made Sunderland the first non top-flight club in 40 years to win.
The phrase is also used to describe gaining promotion after a spectacularly successful season in a lower grade, as when Sunderland won the First Division with a record 105 points in 1999, enabling them to move up to the Premiership.
Most recently, "Doing a Sunderland" refers to being relegated in a humiliating or spectacular fashion. During the 2002/2003 season, although Sunderland were outside the relegation area at Christmas with 18 points, poor performances (they only picked up one more point) and a series of 17 straight defeats (only better by Darwin in League histroy with 18 straight defeats) saw Sunderland relegated with a then-record low points total in the Premiership of 19 points. Sunderland would break this in 2005-2006.

This is a pointless chapter, please stop adding it. It's purely anecdotal, not sourced, most of the information is duplicated from other parts of the Sunderland article, it does not conform to the Football Clubs template, and even if none of that mattered... it is stupid to have this as an entire chapter on Sunderland's headline Wiki article! John the mackem 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I personally have never heard it used. NUFC rubbish I suspect.

It's back again. Judging by the IP address it's the same moron as before (with an obvious void in his life). Whenever it pops up, just delete it. Elysium 73 18:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A note on British English

British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. However, is" works better than "are" with the term club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A.F.C. versus AFC

I've been helping out with requested moves. I was moving Leeds United A.F.C. to Leeds United AFC, a move for which the requester had cited consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that all "A.F.C." articles be moved to "AFC" articles. In the course of the discussion, somebody mentioned this article as an example of a name using the fullstops. I looked into the history at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and sure enough, there was consensus indicated here, here and here. Note also Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. Nevertheless, my move of this page was reverted by User:Robwingfield with the summary: moved Sunderland AFC to Sunderland A.F.C.: no consensus reached on removal of dots, bring in line with all other articles. Well, it's not the case that "all other articles" use the full stops, and how are we to implement consensus if people are going to revert, claiming no consensus, when they haven't looked into the discussions that have happened repeatedly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be coordinated as part of a much wider move - all articles and categories and templates for all English teams (not just A.F.C. articles) need to be moved at the same time. It's not sufficient to just move the main article and let it be inconsistent with other articles for the same club and articles for other clubs. If you're willing to undertake the task for all English clubs I'll support you. If you just change one or two, I'll move the articles back. I think a better way to do this is to raise the issue at WP:RM, as an umbrella move for all English clubs. That way proper consensus can be reached. robwingfield ^(talk) 08:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that proper consensus had been reached, but if not, I'm willing to work on it, yeah. Right now there's some discussion restarting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and it looks a bit complicated. The consensus may vary from country to country, for example, but at the least it seems that all English football clubs could be consistent, all Norwegian clubs consistent, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Does it REALLY matter? SAFCjl 20:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not much. Consistency is nice, but if it's a lot of trouble to achieve it, then it's not worth it. Ultimately, writing articles about football teams on the internet doesn't REALLY matter at all, considering everything else that's going on in the world. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please block this page

This article has been repeatedly vandalised, over the past week by lots of diffrent accounts and IP's. I think we should block it, its getting ridiclous, and as I support Sunderland. I find it very offensive. Star of the north 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Management & Mick McCarthy

I like the new Management & Coaching Staff section, but i'm wondering if it would be better placed as a secondary header under a Management section as such:

1st Management
2nd   Managerial History
           ---
2nd   Current Management & Coaching Staff
           ---

What do people think?

Also, has there been a consensus reached regarding the nationality of Mick McCarthy? I originally added him to the Managerial History section as English, given that he was born in Barnsley and is clearly a Yorkshireman. But due to his Irish footballing pedigree he always seems to get reverted back to Irish. Again, what do people think? John the mackem 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please edit the current squad list, as Jon Stead and Chris Brown have departed. (No. 9 and No. 20). Thanks

Vandalism

Some Newcastle fans are obviously targeting this page for abuse. Get rid of it: In the history section there is an offensive sentence which needs to be removed.

Other Rivalries

I've added Middlesbrough back to the other rivalries sentance. If Leeds is there then surely Middlesbrough have to be too. SAFCjl 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional vandalism has been added to the rivalries section past the Middlesborough bit. I can't click on this page without there being some sort of vandalism any more--Rboxer 11:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Now removed

Vandalism of Squad

Someone keeps adding players to the squad which should not be there, namely John H Deacon. It seems to have gone unnoticed for a while, so it might be worth checking that section more often.

A player has been added to the squad called Aaron Phillips. I'm not aware of this person and I think he is fictious. Could this page be reverted please? --20.133.0.14 07:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

SAFC

Do Sunderland have some kind of exclusive right to the abbreviation SAFC? I ask because on two occasions the disambig page I created has been changed back to a redirect to Sunderland A.F.C.. Surely Stirling Albion F.C. also abbreviates to SAFC (see here), albeit that they are a less notable club? --Jameboy 22:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC) The club and fans of Sterling Albion don't seem to use the abbreviation that often that I can see, as opposed to Sunderland who use it frequently (i.e. www.safc.com). There is also a gulf in notability as well. I suggest reverting it back and leaving SAFC as a redirect to Sunderland. Elysium 73 23:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Discussion at WikiProject Football regarding this. --Jameboy 13:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean up needed

article is very long, messy and disjointed and contains waffle and fan based POV. I think maybe Sunderland fans are considering this page their own and only they are qualified to contribute. I've cleaned up some sections but work still needed. Speed Air Man 10:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Update needed

Could you please notice that the players Johnny Evans and Danny Simpson have left the football club and returned to Manchester United. 81.151.83.107 10:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Some one has replaced the main image with a pooper scooper picture

Raimond van der Gouw

Do we know if he has been allocated a squad number or not? The official website initially said he had but it was removed later. Yesterday's programme said he was registered and number 17 too.

Nyron Nosworthy on squad list

Is Nyron Nosworthy Jamaican or English. --Sunderland06 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The page on him here says he was born in England but has been in the Jamaican international squad. I'd say Jamaican.--Josquius 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity fans

Irregardless of if other teams also have it (the same applies to them): is this section really nessesary? It doesn't seem very fitting of an encyclopdia to me--Josquius 21:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be removed. This information should be moved to the "celebrities" articles. Mattythewhite 21:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick failing Good article

I'm quick failing this because:

• Most important reason: many sections lack inline citations. Compare this to the comprehensive referencing in an article such as Liverpool F.C..
• Trivia section needs exterminating. Any important factoids should be accommodated in a different section, and the rest obliterated.
• As above, the celebrity fans is a little trivial. It's also uncited.
• Some references are not formatted correctly.
• 'Under 18's' has no apostrophe (plural = more than one under 18)
• A lot of very fragmented paragraphs, esp. in 'Top flight'
• 'Fanzines' should be developed.

Good luck with it. As I say, the most important point is that it needs far more references; therefore, the article did not receive a full review and subsequent reviewers might highlight further issues. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Safc badge.png

Image:Safc badge.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Martyn Waghorn

I have set up an article on Martyn Waghorn as he is now "notable" after making his first professional appearance for his club against Manchester United. Spinnerdisk7 (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1989

Can someone check the dates in the history section? It says we joined the league in 1989 ereplacing Stoke... that doesn't sound right to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.243.206 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sunder.gif

Image:Sunder.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sunder.gif

Image:Sunder.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The carribean 8

Source for these alleged players we have scouted. 81.132.214.251 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah found the list [2]. 81.132.214.251 (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

These players aren't Sunderland players, they spent only a week training at the academy, therefore I've removed the list of redlink players. -Toon⁰⁵ 13:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

List of kit suppliers

We have one for shirt sponsers, should we do one for kit suppliers? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

From google images;

 ??-97 Avec

97-01 Asics

01-04 Nike

05-07 Lonsdale

07-?? Umbro

Gazh (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Squad

whats going on with the squad? It's pretty dam big! Shouldn't you split it up into another article, reserves and academy? Govvy (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, but how would you define players as being in the reserves or academy, seeing as they are listed as being in the first team? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, tuff to call considering their website has bunged them all together! [3] :/ Maybe someone could email the site and ask them to split it up a bit!! heh. Besides, surely some of those kids are on loan somewhere? Govvy (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jordan Cook

He is listed on safc.com as number 127 so dont change his squad number unless this changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejoooo (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Stokes - out on loan

He has gone out to Sheffield Utd for a season long loan. This needs to be added to the squad section. http://www.safc.com/news/?page_id=15924 Nelftm (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated, but the source says it's a three month loan. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sunderland A.F.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial Comments: This article passes the quick-fail criteria...the use of the included illustrations & pics seems to check out...the article is fairly well referenced. After glancing at the previous peer reviews and the first GAN review, it's clear a lot of good work has been put into article. My goal for this review is to be as thorough as possible, but please note it's my personal policy not to make any edits on the article I'm currently reviewing, so the list of changes is up to other editors to carry out. Here's my full review:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

My requirements for GA passage:

1. The 4th sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the "History" section partially reads, "The Football Association started an investigation into the payment, they said that the money given...." Insert the word "and" after the comma in that sentence. Done - Added.
2. Remove the comma in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph under the "History" section. Done - Removed.
3. The 6th sentence of the 4th paragraph under the "History" section partially reads, "This, along with Sunderland spending the likes of record breaking transfer fees...." Remove the words "the likes" from the sentence, as the sentence would be more concise & coherent with their removal. Done - Removed.
4. The 1st sentence of the 5th paragraph in the "History" section reads, "In 1957, the club were implicated in a major financial scandal for the second in their history...." I believe the word "time" needs to be inserterd before the phrase "...in their history...." Then, delete the rest of the sentence so that it will now read, "In 1957, the club were implicated in a major financial scandal for the second time in their history." *note:also see my thoughts on the verb tense of this sentence under the "suggestions & comments" section below. Done
5. In the 3rd sentence of the 5th paragraph of the "History" section, a quick explanation of the term "top-flight" would be beneficial. In essence, how would you explain what "top-flight" means to Wiki readers like me who are very unfamilar with football? Comment - Wouldn't it be more appropriate to link to wiktionary, as this is also a widely used word in football articles, it simply means "Of the highest rank, or peak of excellence" (from wiktionary), so in this case the top-flight is the Premier League.

That seems like a fine idea. I'll leave it up to you to decide if you would like to make any sort of change or keep the article the way it is.Monowi (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done - Linked to wiktionary.

1. In the 2nd sentence of the 5th paragraph in the "history" section, a comma after the phrase, "They were accused of breaking the wage cap" would be warranted. Done - Added commma.
2. In the 5th sentence of the 5th paragraph of the "History section, the commas around the phrase "by some" can be removed. Done - Removed.
3. Please revise the 2nd sentence of the 7th paragraph in the "History" section so that it no longer begins with the numerical value of the year 1987. Instead, consider starting the setence with something like, "In the year 1987...." The point being that beggining a setence with a number, even a year, isn't good form (and typing out "1987" into words would be distracting for readers). Done - Reworded.
4. The 3rd sentence of the 10th paragraph in the "History" seems to have some odd wording, as the first part reads, " Quinn had been in charge for the first few games of the season in a poor start,...." I suggest something more straightforward like, "Quinn oversaw a poor start to the first few games of the season, ...." Done
5. The last sentence of the "History" section stands by itself as a paragraph, however I consider a paragraph to be three setences or more. Integrate this sentence into the previous paragraph. Then if possible, try to be more concise with the information presented in this revised paragraph. Done - Merged and trimmed.
6. The "Colours and Crest" section begins with the phrase, "Sunderland began playing in an all blue kit...." I understand from the context of the sentence that "kit" equates to the word "uniform," but adding that explicit extra context into the text would make the article easier to read for readers like myself who have never seen or heard of the word "kit" used in that context. Done - Wikilinked and changed to strip.
7. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph under the "Colours and Crest" section partially reads, "Their badge was included the upper part of the Sunderland coat of arms...." I think the word "was" needs to be removed from that phrase. Done - Removed.
8. The 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph under the "Colours" section partially reads, "In 1972 the badge was changed, but still including the ship...." Looks like another typo; try changing the word "including" to "included." Done - Changed.
9. The 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph under the "Colours" section begins, "In 1997 with the new stadium...." How about changing the wording to something that flows better. My suggestion is, "In conjuction with the move to Stadium of Light...." In this same sentence, also put parenthesis around "but the ship was left out." Done - Reworded.
10. The last sentence of the "Colours and Crest" seems very out of place, and in fact it might even be vandalism. Please remove the sentence entirely, or move it to an appropriate place in the article. Done - Eep thats vandalism, cheers.
11. Run-on sentence: the 3rd sentence under the "Stadiums" section Done - Inserted commas.
12. The 4th sentence of the "Stadiums" says, "...the club had played there for again just the single season before moving...." Try something more concise and clear, like, "the club played a single season there before moving." Done - Changed.
13. The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the "Stadiums" section needs the word "and" inserted after the comma. Done
14. Run-on sentence: the 4th sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the "Stadiums" section. Comment - Is this "Nearing the turn of the century, Sunderland moved to Roker Park, returning to Roker." the sentence you're talking about?

In retrospect, it seems I was referring to the sentence after that. No matter; just clean up the wording of the sentence at your leisure before you put the article up for peer review or FAN next. Monowi (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done - Split into two, and added commmas accordingly.

1. The 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph in the "Stadiums" section begins, "In 1997, Sunderland moved to present stadium...." Insert the word "its" before the word "present." Done
2. Another missing transition in the 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the "Stadiums" section; insert the word "and" before the comma. Comment - If you mean this sentence "The stadium bears the same name as S.L. Benfica's ground Estádio da Luz, albeit in a different language.", I don't think "and" would go properly with that sentence. Maybe "though" would.

That's fine, it's totally up to you as to what specific wording would make the sentence sound better.Monowi (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done - Added "though".

1. The wording of the 1st sentence of the "Statistics" section is strange, reading, "...having made 537 first team appearances 1961 and 1976." Shouldn't it say, "having made 537 first team appearances between 1961 and 1976."? Done - Changed.
2. Add more explanation to the caption that accompanies the graph in the "Statistics and Records" section. I suggest clearly indicating that the blue line is the division between the first & 2nd division, and likewise that the green line is the division between the 2nd & 3rd divisions (as a American not extremely familiar with how the Premier League is structured, the league division thing took me a little bit of time to figure out with the current description). Done
3. In the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the "Statistics" section, rewrite the sentence to, "Sunderland joined the top division in England, The Football League, in the 1890–91 season and did not experience relegation until 1957–58 (a span of 67 seasons seasons)." Done
4. Wikilink to a relevant article for the term "battery gun" in the "Nicknames" section. Done - Linked.

Suggestions for future improvement & Additional Comments:

• Perform another copyedit to the article. I tried to point out everything, but I'm sure a fresh eye could find more improvements. Comment - I'll make sure to ask someone right away.
• Text in the "Stadiums" section slightly overlaps the "Stadium of Light" picture on my computer screen, mostly likely the result of the Sunderland badge & accompanying caption protruding down vertically into the "Stadiums" section. It would be cool to try and ensure the text doesn't overlap for any users, if that is at all possible.
• If you eventually plan on elevating this article to Featured Article status, the organization of the references will probably need to be adjusted into a "Notes" section accompanied by a "References" section that only lists the books (see the Featured Article Derry City F.C. for an example of what I mean). Specifically, I would suggest using a feature of the Template:Cite book whereby you can automatically link from a listing in the "notes" section down to the References section where all the books are listed using the "ref" parameter. Done - Modelled on Derry City's style.
• Be mindful that the picture of the Bob Stokoe might be called into question by a user of Wikipedia Commons. I had a similar-type picture for the Ozzie Smith article, but I had to re-take, re-size and re-issue the picture from a GNU license because a user on Wikipedia Commons claimed there was no "freedom of panorama" in the United States. I have no idea if that law applies in the UK, but I did want to give you a heads up in case you ever run into a problem like that. Comment - Actually not long ago I ran this over with User:Geni, who confirmed that I needed to contact the person who took the picture. I messaged the author on flickr and asked if he could adjust the licensing. He did accordingly and Geni said it was fine as she is really good with image licensing, I'll trust her.
• I have to admit I'm puzzled by phrases like "...Sunderland were admitted..." and "...the club were implicated...." I've noticed that other football articles, like the FA Class article I mentioned above, have the same verb usage when referring to an individual team, so I gather this is an accepted practice for football-related articles. I normally think of sports organizations as single entities unto themselves, but I understand that by using Sunderland in the plural, it refers to the collection of team members. That said, the plural usage itself doesn't remain consistent. For example, the 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph in the "History" section reads, "It was the closest the club has ever come to The Double." If the singular verb usage is present with the object of that sentence, "club", than why not also have the 2nd sentence of the third paragraph under the "History" section use the same singular verb tense? Even using one of the team's nicknames, such as in a phrase like, "The Black Cats were admitted..." would make more sense to me. Regardless, my puzzlement on this issue will not affect the passage of this article.

Review Result:

GAN review ON HOLD

In short, this article is fine overall, and just needs some copyediting for GA status.

I will place the article on hold for seven days, during which time all requirements need to be met in order for me to consider passing it. When/if all the requirements are met, please notify me on my talk page, & I will review the changes. For anyone else reading this review, please consider reviewing an article yourself at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia thus far, and good luck with the article in the future! Monowi (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

GAN review passed

Congratulations; after reviewing the requested changes, I believe this article now meets the requirements of a Good Article. It was interesting and enjoyable to learn about Sunderland A.F.C. during the review process. Best of luck as you work towards making this a Featured Article. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Academy of Light

I've noticed that there is no links to the Academy of Light on the page, anyone care to incorporate this into the article somehow? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

Per a request on my talk page, I'm assessing the images for a potential nomination at FAC.

• Sunderland A.F.C. - please complete an {{information}} template for this image. Done
• File:SAFC1972-97crest.svg - same for this one. Done
• And File:Safcattendances.JPG as well. For both this file and File:Sunderland AFC League positions.jpg please include the source used for data culled for both graphs in the summary info. Done
• In general, the image placement and appearance is haphazard. Please consider making images a uniform size no larger than 300 pixels. Per WP:MOSIMAGES, the placement of the image to the left under the heading in Stadiums is not allowed. Done
• Please let me know if you have questions. Best of luck! --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The path to the second FAC

A few issues I noted when running through the history section:

• Sunderland won the game 5–3 and were crowned "champions of the world" - "crowned" is potentially misleading and a little informal in this context. To the literal-minded reader it conjures mental images of a coronation.
  • I've changed the two mentionings to "announced" and "named".
• The club escaped relegation from the First Division by one point in the 1927–28 season despite 35 goals from Dave Halliday. The point was won after a match against Middlesbrough, and they finished in fifteenth place - while the intended meaning is obvious, it makes it sound as though that point was the only one that mattered, when a total of 39 was required.
  • How about a "one point margin" or would that sound too clunky?
• The refs to a West Brom fansite should be replaced by something more reliable. It is also a deadlink.
  • I've gone ahead and replaced these with a few different sources.
• After the close call, the club was promoted to Division One in 1964 after finishing in second place. Sunderland overcame Charlton Athletic in the final stages of the game, won and went on to clinch promotion - the wording in the second sentence is muddled. When did this game take place? Was it a promotion decider? We cannot tell from the information provided. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this came about through copyediting, I've cleared it up now. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Frazier Campbell

There has been no mention of his squad number on the SAFC website, so i have removed the number 9 until it is verified 04:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.61.199 (talk)

Kit supplier / sponsers

Period	Kit manufacturer
1989-1993	Hummel
1993-1997		Avec
1997–2001	Asics
2001-2004		Nike
2004-2007	Lonsdale
2007-		Umbro

Help appreciated, i'm crap with these tables. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Record run in the first division

"remained in the top league for 68 successive seasons, losing the record to Arsenal when they were relegated in 1958"

Firstly, although it was 68 YEARS after joining the Football League in 1890 that SAFC were first relegated in 1958, because of the gap for the war years 1914/18 and 1939/46, it was only 57 PLAYING seasons. I feel this should be corrected as it is misleading as it stands. Also, they did not "lose the record to Arsenal when they were relegated", in fact Arsenal did not play their 58th consecutive season in the first division until 1983.

If Arsenal are to be noted, then Everton will play their 58th consecutive season in the top flight (unbroken by war years too) next season if they avoid relegation this time round, thus also beating SAFC's achievement.

Gusssss (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please detail hooliganism

I was disappointed that this got to FAC status without going into related hooligans, which belong in a comprehensive article. I just added a little paragraph of my own to get the ball rolling, but I know next to nothing about it. But even Americans know that association football teams have firms associated with them that do far more interesting (and intolerable) things to one another. Wnt (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The article did previously mention hooliganism, but it was brought up in the first FAC that it played a very minor part of Sunderland's history. Mentioning it just because other teams, like West Ham and Milwall have histories of hooliganism seems pointless. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, a reference I found would seem to contradict this. It's possible that the team effectively cracked down on hooligans, but that seems worth mentioning.

I added this bit because I don't approve of the whitewashing of articles, nor of "recentism"; a featured article should comprehensively cover all facets of the subject. I see that the original FAC did have a line about the hooliganism being overstressed, but it shouldn't have been removed entirely, especially if Sunderland represents a successful example of cracking down on hooligans. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference 95, at the end of the sentence "Like many teams, Sunderland is followed by football hooligans, notably the Vauxies and the Seaburn Casuals, moreso the latter in more recent years", is broken. It also looks a bit of a strange reference to be using to support that sentence and this raises my suspicions about whether this is original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I could have done better with that. I was hoping some people here knew more about this and could be goaded into expanding this. The article football hooliganism mentions these two names and one more I didn't see mentioned in some less-than-reliable sources. I think the sentence could stand (it's using a primary source about itself) if I had put in the Vauxies' web site also, but I didn't see one on a list of such sites I found. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)