I think the article is very good and it should be a featured one. I have been working on this article for about two months. It is accurate, comprehensive and well-referenced, If there are any problems or suggestions please reply.--Hadrianos1990 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Object Oh my, its another one of these nominations. Nowhere near FA status. If you really want to get it to FA status, you will need to do a Peer Review and have a lot of spare time on your hands. Mattythewhite 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose and may I suggest you withdraw this FAC and head for peer review instead. At a glance there are several manual of style issues, and a serious lack of citation. Also it may be worthwhile looking at other current football club FA's to see what to aim for in terms of content and structure, such as Arsenal F.C. or Norwich City F.C.. Let me know when you've set the PR up. The Rambling Man 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - This token FAC needs a lot of work to reach FA standard. Try looking at some other featured football club articles for an idea of the structure you should be aiming for. - PeeJay 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The article is not ready for FA status at the moment. Have a read through Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C. and Manchester City F.C. to get an idea of what is required. There is a lot of competition for FA status, and it is usually a good idea to pass Good Article and Peer Review first before attempting FA. --♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunately, I had a flick through the article, and went straight to the 'Supporters' section, and immediaely saw unreferenced material regarding crowd attendances at the stadium. Such minutiae require addressing when attempting FA articles, as I have learned.--Bulleid Pacific 10:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but this article is nowhere near FA standard. The quality of prose is quite poor in many places (I suggest that someone whose primary language is English be asked to copyedit it, as much of the text reads as if it was written by non-native English speakers) and there should probably be at least five times as many citations as currently exist. One section refers to "controversy" but is completely uncited, which is a 100% no-no. I endorse the suggestion above that a new peer review be requested ChrisTheDude 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
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.