Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cardiff City F.C./archive2
- 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 by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2019 [1].
- Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is about Cardiff City, a Welsh association football club playing in the English Football League. I nominated this in late 2017 and it failed due to a lack of reviewers. It's been a while since then, I've tweaked, tuned and improved bits here and there, submitted it for a peer review and had an editor from the WP:GOCE give it the once over. Hopefully it'll get across the line this time. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by Cas Liber
[edit]I enjoyed reading the article and think it is on its way to a shiny star. Just a few quibbles.....
During the 1960s, Cardiff began qualifying for European competition for the first time as a result of winning the Welsh Cup.- is this because they just won the Welsh Cup for the first time or because the cup winners became eligible for the first time?- Expanded slightly
[After dropping into the Third Division, ]Cardiff were continuously in the lower two divisions of the Football League between 1985 and 1993- suggest bracketed bit is redundant as you've just mentioned the relegation at the end of the previous para.- Removed
In June 2009, the club completed construction of a state-of-the-art 26,828-seat stadium on the site of the now-demolished old Cardiff Athletics Stadium at a cost of £48 million- does "state-of-the-art" actually mean anything?-Removed
- what kit did the club play in between 1930 and 1992? There is no diagram of that one...
- @Casliber: Thanks for your comments, I've fixed the first three issues. In regards to the kit, I was trying to include the most significant changes in the club colours and the kit was pretty consistent in that time. Kosack (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah but you haven't listed which one of the ones is it, I figured it was one of the blue shirt white shorts ones....anyway, should be easy to fix. All else is fine on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've added an extra one in to cover the extended time period. Thanks for the support. Kosack (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah but you haven't listed which one of the ones is it, I figured it was one of the blue shirt white shorts ones....anyway, should be easy to fix. All else is fine on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the table position graph - Done
- File:Cardiff_City_squad_1920.jpg: when/where was this first published? What steps were taken to try to ascertain authorship?
- I'm unaware of the original publisher and author. The picture is not used in any of the print sources I possess, the only two uses I have found on the net are very unlikely to have any claim to the rights. I have searched the British Newspaper Archive and it appears the photo was not published in any newapaper at the time either which is why I used the license linked to the picture. Kosack (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- This needs a US PD tag, and the UK tag in use requires you to specify in the image description what steps were taken - suggest adding some of your commentary here there. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- File:CardiffCityFC_League_Performance.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this graph?
- The image is the work of another editor so I'm unsure of the source they are using. I have added a source that supports the information to the caption.
- Three of the four FURs for the historical logos are quite generic, and the fourth is incomplete - these need to be stronger to warrant the inclusion of all four. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: In all honesty I'm not good with image licensing at all. If the use of the club badges is objectionable, I would have no problem with their removal. Thanks for taking a look, let me know your thoughts. Kosack (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- The issue is that they're non-free, and at the moment they are not well justified. If they are to be kept, that needs to change. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I've added the US PD tag and provided a brief commentary of searches undertaken for the squad image. I've removed the older logos. Kosack (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- The issue is that they're non-free, and at the moment they are not well justified. If they are to be kept, that needs to change. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you're going to be using that tag, we need to find a pre-1923 publication, not just creation. That's going to be a problem if there wasn't a contemporary usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I've emailed one of the websites that have it in use to see if they have the information. Until this can be established, I've removed the image and added two new ones, both of which are much more stable license-wise. Kosack (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you're going to be using that tag, we need to find a pre-1923 publication, not just creation. That's going to be a problem if there wasn't a contemporary usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Hzh
[edit]Comments resolved
|
---|
The article looks good. I will start with a general comment, other comments will be added over the next few days. The history section can be tightened a little - since there are already separate articles on the history, the history in the main article should be more of a summary. For example, the description of the goal scored in the 1927 FA Cup final can be shortened, also the word "clumsily" seems a bit editorialising, and not given in the source (same for the wording
Some of the following are just suggestions, you are not obliged to keep all the suggestions. I noticed some quirks, but everyone has their own, I'm not sure if they are worth mentioning.
That's more or less it I think. Good job. Hzh (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
|
- Support I'm satisfied that the article is good enough to meet the FA criteria. Hzh (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your thorough review, much appreciated. Kosack (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Lee Vilenski
[edit]I had a look through the article, and it looks very good. Could I have a little explination on "The team's longest period in the top tier of English football came between 1921 and 1929. Since then, they have spent a total of nine seasons in the top flight, the most recent being in the current 2018–19 Premier League season." in the lede. Could this not comment that the team were in the top flight for (presumably) 18 years, and had this run as well? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: Perhaps a reword to "The club has spent 17 seasons in the top tier of English football since, the longest period being between 1921 and 1929. The team's most recent season in the top flight is the current 2018–19 Premier League season." Thoughts? Kosack (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be better. It's a little confusing otherwise. I'll scan the rest of the article in a bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Changed that over. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I can't see too much else that would cause me any concern. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Changed that over. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be better. It's a little confusing otherwise. I'll scan the rest of the article in a bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
[edit]- Quality and reliability
- I did the source review at the previous archived FAC. I raised questions about the quality/reliability of several sources, but concluded that I was "happy to accept the opinions of other editors with more expertise in football articles than mine, as to the reliability of these sources. If they don't object, I won't." Same applies now. The sources in question were:
- English Football League Tables
- Welsh Football Data Archive
- Historic Football Kits
- 11 v 11
- To these I will add: The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation
- Source links
- All working per the external links checker tool
- Formatting
- Ref 39: The Independent should be linked on earliest mention (it is linked in ref 69)
- Ref 62 missing publisher location: Also, ISBN should be in the consistent format used in the bibliography
- Ref 72 missing retrieval date
- Ref 76: "cricketarchive.co.uk" is not the publisher, it's what has been published. You could use "work=" and add "publisher= Cricinfo"
- Ref 104: missing publisher details
Subject to the above, sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: Thanks, I've fixed the issues you found above. Just to clarify the extra source, the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF) is widely accepted as a reliable source and is used extensively. The organisation's charter provides a clearer overview of the website's information process. Kosack (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Coord notes
[edit]Looks pretty close but a couple of things:
- I'd expect to see the content under Manager history cited; likewise Backroom staff, unless the citations at the top of the Players section are supposed to cover that too.
- @Ian Rose: There were sources on the table headings but the blue of the table was making them difficult to see. I've moved them under each table now to make them clearer. Kosack (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- As this would be the nominator's first FA if this is successful, unless I missed something above, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC, or perhaps one of the earlier reviewers would like to take care of it.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- The information and sources look fine to me, and I checked a good number of the sources I can accessed when I first went through the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector did not show anything suspicious - one is a copy of an old revision of this article, another is the source of a a quote, the others also appear to be OK, although I did adjusted a sentence to remove a part that was copied. Hzh (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Hzh: Thanks for partaking in the review process! Normally for a spot-check (unless I'm quite familiar with the reviewer and their methods) I would expect an enumerated list of text–source comparisons. For example, "I checked this passage against this source" and whether it passed verification. Can you provide a list of which passages you checked, against which sources? --Laser brain (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- If this is what you are interested in, then you'll have to disregard my reply on copyvio check. I went over the entire article sentence by sentence (twice), checking against the sources where necessary, which took a week. I'm afraid I do not have the time to do it again. Doing that here means writing a reply that's greater than the size of the article for the sources I checked, and it would be better to have someone else looking at it afresh. There are a number of tools you can use for checking, for example Earwig's Copyvio Detector which does pretty much what you wanted. Hzh (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's fine, Hzh, we don't doubt you've put in the effort. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- If this is what you are interested in, then you'll have to disregard my reply on copyvio check. I went over the entire article sentence by sentence (twice), checking against the sources where necessary, which took a week. I'm afraid I do not have the time to do it again. Doing that here means writing a reply that's greater than the size of the article for the sources I checked, and it would be better to have someone else looking at it afresh. There are a number of tools you can use for checking, for example Earwig's Copyvio Detector which does pretty much what you wanted. Hzh (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Hzh: Thanks for partaking in the review process! Normally for a spot-check (unless I'm quite familiar with the reviewer and their methods) I would expect an enumerated list of text–source comparisons. For example, "I checked this passage against this source" and whether it passed verification. Can you provide a list of which passages you checked, against which sources? --Laser brain (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.