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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:55, 25 August 2008 [1].

---

History of Bradford City A.F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): Peanut4 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've written this article up from scratch, had it pass GAN and taken it through two peer reviews. Now, I think it's ready to list at FAC, and ready to address any of your comments and questions. Peanut4 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Another FAC that would give me even more to keep track of? Why not? Here goes...

• Why do all of the season pages use hyphens instead of en dashes? The formatting is correct on all of these, but I just found that odd. Doesn't really affect the article, though.
• Early successes (1903–1919): "and first home game six days later" Was should be placed before six.
• "with his last game as player coming the following month" Last game as a player.
• "but he missed the final four games of the run because of club suspension." Could be "a club suspension", but I'm not sure.
• Burnley linked twice in section. Also, I'd like a link for clean sheet because this could be considered jargon.
• "City players who died" I'd rather this say Bradford City, because the last City mentioned is Leeds City.
• Inter-war years (1919–1946): Some awkward wording here: "It was a position replicated the following year, before in 1921–22 City lost their place in Division One after ten campaigns,." Perhaps try "It was a position replicated the following year, before the 1921–22 season, when City lost their place in Division One after 10 campaigns." If this is used, break up the part after this.
• "and the average attendance of 18,551 is still the highest official average recorded by the club." It says earlier that their highest average attendance was over 22,000 in 1920–21. What's going on?
• Lower divisions (1946–1981): Manchester United was linked a couple sections ago.
• "City had had three managers" Don't like the redundancy. Is "went through" formal enough?
• Watch for phrases like "who had fired City into Division Three."
• "before they were knocked out in the quarter-finals to eventual winners Southampton 1–0." I think it would be better as "by eventual winners..."

I'll come back at some point, but forgive me if it takes some time, as I'm swamped right now. For the most part it looks pretty good, but some improvements are still possible. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think I've done everything above. I thought I had added a note about the average attendance, then realised I had on the Valley Parade page. Anyway, I've added it in here too-basically the 1921 figure is unofficial figures, and 1929 the highest average once official records were kept. Peanut4 (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only a handful more comments from me after looking at the rest.

• Bantam progressivism (1981-1990): "In May 1981, City appointed former England international defender Roy McFarland as new manager." Should probably add its or their before new.
• "But the success was overshadowed..." Usually however starts such a sentence instead of but.
• Richmond era and administration (1990 onwards): "to be replaced by former player and his assistant Chris Kamara." A bit jumbled. I suggest "to be replaced to his assistant, former player Chris Kamara."
• Excess links: Leeds United and Middlesbrough were linked in the previous section, and country links such as Italian are falling out of favor here.
• How about moving the part on Marsh's shave to after City avoids relegation? It would fit better there. Note that I don't mean the prediction, just the shave. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just added the last bit about Marsh following the peer review, and was unsure where to put it at the time. I've moved it upon your very good suggestion. Hopefully done everything else too. Peanut4 (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Nice team history article. One more thing before I go: Check the photo captions. Full-sentence captions need periods, while short captions like in the lead picture don't. At least that's how I understand the guideline. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support and particularly all the constructive comments. I've added full stops to two captions. I think it's to do with full sentences / sentence fragments rather than length of captions. Peanut4 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - good job. A minor comment on the "Dewhirst, John" references - one use gives "chapter one" while another gives "Ch. 2" these need to be consistent. Also the formatting of the ISBN number should be the same for all uses. Keith D (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the former point. I've just copied the ISBN numbers from the books themselves. Is there a preferred format for the numbers? Peanut4 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there is a specific preferred format, just that the same ISBN had dashes in one occurrence and spaces in another. Keith D (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent work. I can see no issues other than very minor things it would be quicker to fix myself. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "But following his ..." - not keen on sentences starting with But...
• Still a few wikilinked dates whihc may not be entirely necessary (e.g. "January 30, 1903")
• "with his last game as a player coming " 2x player in that sentence reads a little clunkily to me.
• "another six victories with five goals or more" this is unclear - did Bradford score 5 or more goals or were a total of five or more goals scored by both teams but Bradford still winning?
• "fourth round second replay " possibly unclear to non-experts.
• "new look " probably needs a hyphen.
• struggled to cope with the death of his son two years earlier,[26] Bradford continued to struggle " - struggle x 2 reads poorly.
• "of a world war" just "of war" would read better in my opnion.
• "day[17][36]—" not sure of the placement of these references.

That's halfway, I'll return soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much for your input. I've addressed all the above points. However, I've kept the position of that ref as per WP:REFPUNC, although I'm still unsure if I'm right. Hopefully I've caught all the dates - do I need to unlink the dates in references too? Peanut4 (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No image check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image issues:
  • Image:Grenville Hair.jpg - taken from a website with no mention of claimed licensed (GFDL); the image description page needs to indicate who owns the rights to this image, and provide proof that they released under the GFDL.
  • Image:Bradford City League Record.PNG - No source given for the data for this graph (and preferably, source data should be included in tabular form in the image description, although that's not strictly necessary). Although the record is presumably widely available, the image description page should still point to a reliable source for it.
  • Image:Pre-fire attendances.PNG - same thing: no indication where this data comes from.

All the other images seem fine, copyright-wise.--ragesoss (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read the previous advice on the Image:Grenville Hair.jpg image and it doesn't appear to have the required licence so I've deleted it from the article. I've added the source of the info to the other two images, both at Commons and on the History of Bradford City A.F.C. page. Peanut4 (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.--ragesoss (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also on image checking, just noting that all non-free images are in accordance with NFCC's significance issues and used appropriately, no other problems. --MASEM 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments cont.

• "but they went back to the top of the Division Four " - I missed the bit where they were at the top to start with? I guess it's implied from the winning run but it's not explicitly stated.
• "City finished the season second and were promoted back to Division Three, five points behind Sheffield United" the five points behind is more relevant to finishing second than the promotion, slight rejig?
• I think centre-back is usually hyphenated in English football. Maybe...
• "own fortunes at Derby were unsuccessful " not sure whether fortunes have degrees of success. Just reads a little odd to me (but I have just woken up so forgive me).
• " club's leading goalscorer" presumably this is all-time leading goalscorer?
• "during its most turbulent time" this is a little POV in my opinion.
• "The club finished his first season " odd wording. I know what you mean but it reads odd. Maybe, "In his first season as chairman...?"
• "before he left for Luton Town in November 1995 to be replaced by " I think "1995 and was replaced by..." would scan a little better.
• " became the club's third £1 million signing of the season because of a clause in the transfer deal" this is unclear. Presumably the promotion activated a promotion clause? Can you be a little bit more explicit?
• Was the Intertoto cup the first European outing for the club? Worth emphasising.
• "Marsh kept his earlier promise to shave his hair," interesting but should this really form part of the History of Bradford City AFC?
• "bust-up " - not particularly encyclopedic?

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for more comments. I think I've addressed them all now. I had put in the Marsh info following the peer review to finalise his previous mention. I've now removed it - do you think it's worth keeping the first bit? I'd put it in to show the pundits' view of the club's chances in the Premier League, and it was quite high-profile at the time. Peanut4 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments a few picky bits, only got about halfway through the article so far, will be back if necessary.

• Early successes section. The club faced having to apply for re-election perhaps a footnote to explain what that means.
• 3rd para, specifically cite the FA Cup remaining their only major honour.
• 4th para, would the opening sentence work better as Bradford's defence of the FA Cup was ended in the fourth round by Barnsley, ...
• Inter-war years section. should "15th-place finish" and "fourth-round FA Cup exit" be hyphenated?
• Lower divisions section. would "partially closed" be better than "half-closed", or turn it round to "eight years after part of the Midland Rd stand had been closed"?
• Layne's goal total "remains a club record for a season to this day" maybe lose "to this day".
• Would it be helpful to add a footnote to explain why moving the pitch enabled all four stands to be opened? or include a brief relevant quote from the book, if there is one, in the reference.
• 2nd para, two "spell(s) in Division Three" a bit close together.
• I know what you mean, but "partly because of more than 40 goals from the trio..." reads awkwardly.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've added a wikilink for re-election to the specific part of promotion and relegation, and addressed the rest of the points. I'm not sure about "15th-place finish" and "fourth-round exit" especially looking at other articles. Is there any particularly reason why you would prefer it with a hyphen? Peanut4 (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As outlined at Hyphen#Compound modifiers, but it's probably a matter of taste. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotcha. I've changed them all accordingly. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a, 2a. I've copy-edited the lead to demonstrate the amount of work that is required throughout the article. As well as on the clause level, it's a pity that the lead is so dominated by relegation, promotion, relegation, promotion. I feel dizzy, and it's not very engaging. Perhaps just indicate that there have been a number of relegations, promotions and financial crises, but the Club has succeeded in blah blah. Too much boring detail that would be better in the body of the article (it surely is already there). Try to capture the readers more in the lead, so they won't give up early on. Tony (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a brief edit to the lead, and will have a full think about it. While I understand there is a few mentions of promotion and relegation, it is the key to the English football leagues. However, I will try and re-phrase some of the lead. Peanut4 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple more amendments to the lead, to try and remove the repetition of promotion/relegation, etc. However it does focus on such events since that is how the success and failure of English league clubs is generally measured. I've also asked a couple of editors who are listed as copy-editors at WP:PRV to have a look. Is there anything specific you think needs changing, or is it a general makeover? Peanut4 (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean a "general makeover". Spot-checks here:

• "Less than two months after City stayed up, Jewell left to join Sheffield Wednesday, with his assistant Chris Hutchings replacing him as manager." The old noun plus -ing issue. See your very own answer here.
• "first and third round victories" --> "first- and third-round victories". See MoS.

But it's not too bad at all, overall. Tony (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take a full look later, but I've made those two changes above you suggest. I did think about the second of the two when I made some amendments per comments above. Otherwise I hope the lead needed more changes than the rest of the text - I did put in one of the peer reviews a request to address the lead. But above all, thanks for your comments and assistance. Peanut4 (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One editor with football knowledge is going to take a look and hopefully give it a copy edit in the next couple of days. Peanut4 (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've given the article a bit of a revamp. I've also tried to rmv the proliferation or "promotion" and "relegation" although it is difficult given the nature of the sport. Hope it looks better. Peanut4 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments just a few nitpicks

• the club broke several club records club repeated, what records?

• I've changed the first use of club to they. I think there are too many records to list in the lead - they are mentioned in the main body of the article. Peanut4 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• some paras very long, can any be sensibly split?

• I've tried to previously split at sensible points, but I'll take another look. There are probably some which can be split. Peanut4 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Having lost their manager O'Rourke in 1921, I'd put commas either side of the manager's name
• A Save Bradford City Fund was... A "Save Bradford City Fund" was... perhaps? looks odd with no formatting

A nice article, jimfbleak (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and suggestions. Much appreciated. Peanut4 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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