Talk:AFC Wimbledon/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 21:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll review this one; I'll put together something substantive tomorrow... Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Right, let's get started. As always, reviewing using WP:WIAGA. I've looked through the history and there is a previous failed GA nom but it is old and is, with respect, hardly instructive, so doesn't really impact this review. Quickfail issues first:

Disambiguation: Using the Dablinks tool, two are showing up (Npower and NPower). These need fixing.
Images: The logo is tagged fair use which I think should be fine, the Gray pic is cc-by-att and is fine, the play-off final pic is the same, the football pitch line up image is fine (though the caption needs referencing to a reliable source confirming the line-up, the mascot image is okay (though could and perhaps should be moved to the Commons) and the Kingsmeadow image is good.
Dead links; there are a lot highlighted on the dead link tool. See here for a list of them. It would be helpful if new links could be found.
Quick Fail issues: There are problems here. There are three citation needed tags scattered through the article and these are consistent with a number of sections which lack inline references (per No.2 of the GA criteria). The citation needed tags are not new; one appears to have been present since 2011 and the others date from 2012. There are very real grounds that this nomination be quickfailed on these grounds. Additionally, I have had a peruse through the article history and there is some evidence of recent edit warring among the nominator and an IP user involving stats for the manager among other things. Again, the article must be stable in order for it to be considered a good article and this is contentious in this case.

In my view this article should be quickfailed for the above reasons. However, in order that the article can be improved, I'll make some comments/suggestions on the first few sections which should hopefully prepare the article for a future nomination:

The article is very, very long. Compare for example Manchester United which is a featured article on one of the biggest clubs in the world and which is less detailed than this one. So are the articles on Sunderland A.F.C (another Featured Article) and Newcastle United F.C (a Good Article) to name but three in total. Please consider WP:Article size and WP:Summary style for guidance on how to manage the length of the article and the depth of detail included.

Lead

Consider blue linking Association football
"which is the fourth tier of English football"; this is superfluous and can be removed
Remove the blue link from the second Kingston upon Thames per WP:Overlink which as a general rule provides that a work should only be bluelinked once.
"They play at Kingsmeadow, in Kingston upon Thames, London, a ground which is shared with Kingstonian": this is a fragmented sentence – suggest splitting after 'London' into two sentences starting a second sentence "They share this ground with Kingstonian F.C.." Additionally, what is the capacity of Kingsmeadow?
The next paragraph also contains some odd prose and should be reconsidered. Suggest "The club was founded in 2002 after the Football Association ratified the decision to move Wimbledon F.C to Milton Keynes. That club changed it's name to Milton Keynes Dons in 2004. Many fans of the original club were angry at the move and, concerned that the tradition and heritage of the original club were lost, formed a new club, AFC Wimbledon, in protest."
The affiliation details given are too much and should be removed per WP:Summary Style.
Again, some re-writing using modern, standard English would help the next paragraph. try to keep your prose simple and clean, rather than complex; start with "In it;s first full season after formation, AFC Wimbledon played in the Combined Counties League. This is the ninth tier of the English football league system."
Whilst I agree as a fellow football fan that AFC have indeed been "extremely successful" in their short history, we should try to avoid WP:PEACOCK terms and write in accordance with the neutrality policy. Simply writing "AFC were promoted five times in their first nine seasons of operation" (or similar) conveys the success but allows the reader to form their own opinion.
"...and going up from the ninth tier (Combined Counties Premier) to the fourth (League Two)": again, this is superfluous and can be removed without adversely affecting the article.
The sentence involving Rushden and Diamonds needs a reference to a reliable source.
Does the unbeaten record have a better, more up-to-date source. The source provided certainly shows that AFC set a record in 2004 but it doesn't show that the record still stands today (nine years later).
There are some things missing from the lead that I would expect to see. The promotions are mentioned but major honours should also be given (winning the conference play-offs at Wembley, for example). I'd expect to see the name of the current manager and perhaps the finishing position for the last league season. Any notable managers should perhaps be included; who is the most successful, for example? A note on club colours might be appropriate also. Is there any local rivalry of note?

History

This section is very large indeed; indeed it is far too large and in-depth to satisfy the 'summary style' requirement. I don't think that this level of depth should be wasted; you should seriously consider splitting and creating a new article entitled History of AFC Wimbledon or similar and effectively copy and pasting this section to the new article. There is a lot of precedent for this – look again at the articles I linked to earlier and you will see that MUFC, NUFC and SAFC have all done the same thing. Once you have split, you can then redraft this section as a summary of the history and provide a redirect to the main history article for anyone who wants more depth.

Colours and Crest

I'm not sure that the strip image adds much to the article. I would consider removing it or transferring it to a 'history' article as it doesn't really reflect the colours now.
The entire first paragraph is unreferenced and needs to be supported with inline citations to reliable sources.
"...associated with the rise of the original Wimbledon F.C. to the top of the Football League" Is this sentence strictly necessary? I'd suggest simply stating "associated with Wimbledon F.C.".
Almost all of the second paragraph, except the last sentence, needs referencing.
I'm fairly sure that 'three-third kits' isn't quite correct. Is it not 'three third-kits'?
Again there is an awful lot of detail here and I'm not sure that we need a description of every single kit, home, away and third, that has ever been produced. The summary style applies here; from as much as I can tell the home kit has been consistently yellow with blue detailing which is reversed for the away kit save an early white version. The third kits have been white until 2011 when it changed to maroon but in 2013 this reverted back to predominantly white. Much more detail than this as regard colour is superfluous.
It seems that the current third strip was selected after a public vote was tied and the manager picked the winner (see ref.65). This probably is notable and could be included; it is certainly more notable that the precise detail of the sock turnovers from 2006.
Football League has been linked several times previously.Per WP:Overlink these should be removed.
"To mark their first game in the Football League on 6 August 2011 against Bristol Rovers, the team wore a special one-off white and blue commemorative kit based on that worn by the original Wimbledon F.C. during 1977–78 in order to commemorate their own first season as a member of the Football League, in the old Fourth Division (now League Two)" There are some un-encyclopedic words here ('Special, one-off') and you have 'commemorate' and 'commemorative' in the same sentence. I'd consider a sentence rewrite – perhaps "To mark their first game in the Football League on 6 August 2011 against Bristol Rovers the team wore a commemorative white and blue kit. The colours mirrored those worn by the original Wimbledon F.C. during their first season as a member of the Football League in 1977-78."
What in Ref.66 confirms that the commemorative shirt was emblazoned with a modified crest?
Everything on the crest is unreferenced and must be supported by inline citations

Sponsorship

Link 67 is dead. A replacement would be useful.
Again there is too much detail here and some of the material borders on WP:ADVERT even though I'm sure it is not intended to be. Compare what is here with the same section at Manchester United.
The first sentence is longer than necessary; suggest splitting in half?
Try to avoid the 'SI' abbreviations.
"The sponsorship of AFC Wimbledon is not Sports Interactive's first support of lower-league football; they sponsored a "Save York City" charity football tournament in 2001." The prose here could be improved; suggest "AFC Wimbledon are not the first club sponsored financially by Sports Interactive; they sponsored a "Save York City" charity football tournament in 2001."
The Paul Strank's section is very close to WP:Advert and should be rewritten and supported by reference to reliable, secondary sources rather than a link to Strank's website. I'm sure a local newspaper will have picked up the renaming and drafting an article or two on it.
The last paragraph doesn't make a great deal of sense; is 'The Tempest End' the official name of a stand or a nickname of some sort? Is it still in place now or was it just for the 2005-06 season? You should be explicit here and include a reference to a reliable source.

Supporters

Again, there are no references at all in this section
As mentioned earlier, npower is a disambiguation link and should be redirected.
"ran away with the prize money" is not encyclopedic. Simply "AFC Wimbledown fans generated over 100,000 noise counts which was sufficient to win the prize"
For all the above, there is an argument that the entire 'noise prize' thing is WP:TRIVIA. for a club built and owned by supporters this section seems rather flippant. I'd much rather read about seasonal attendance figures, record attendances, numbers taken to Wembley for the play-off final etc. I also seem to remember that the original Wimbledon was noted for some poor attendances; it might be worth seeing how AFC attendances compare?

References

Ref. 3 is dead. Can you find a replacement?
What makes Ref.66 a reliable source? It looks like a self-published fansite so far as I can tell.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Lots of repetition and the prose is okay but weak in places.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Mostly okay but some weasel-words and peacock terms
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Several sections completely lack sources. Citation needed tags evidenced prior to the review
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Way too much depth. Suggestions to split and to consider summary style made.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Reasonable but weasel words and one or two sections which are close to WP:ADVERT
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Some recent history of disputes which seem to have settled of late
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Lots of good images provided. Captions are broadly okay
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Closing comments
Unfortunately this article still has some way to go before it meets the criteria and I genuinely do not feel that the recommended week period for improvement will be enough to make the necessary changes, so I am failing the nomination. Once my own suggestions above are considered I strongly recommend that the article is listed for peer review prior to a future nomination to give this the best possible chance of future success. Please do not be discouraged – the obvious passion for the subject from the author(s) is evident here, there has obviously been a lot of effort gone into the work and there are the makings of a 'Good Article'. The first one is usually the hardest (as I found myself at my first GAN).

If you disagree with this review, feel free to ask for a reassessment. If you have any further questions, please feelfree to message me on my talk page and I'll help as best I can. Good luck with improving the article further. Meetthefeebles (talk)