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 18:16, 6 August 2007.

Leek Town F.C.[edit]

A couple of weeks ago I had to drive through Leek and happened to pass the football ground, so I thought I'd stop and take a photo which could be added to the club's WP page. When I saw the feeble state of the article as it stood at the time I decided to try and expand it. I think I've done as much as I can, and I'm pretty pleased with the results, which have been peer reviewed, so I thought I'd bring it here to FAC. Let me know what you think............ ChrisTheDude 18:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't conoscere (excuse me) the team, but the article is OK Green Owl ^Uh ^uh
Support I saw no major problems at the peer review, and all minor points that I raised were either actioned or kept and explained to my satisfaction. BeL1EveR 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - I think that the history section is too heavily skewed towards the recent past. The last 14 years are covered in a lot of depth, more so than any other 14 year slice. Secondly, there are some standalone sentences which need to be merged. The club is pretty obscure, but I would hope that more prose information could be found if possible. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written the history section to de-emphasise the last 14 years and tightened up the writing throughout - is it any better now.....? ChrisTheDude 07:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd have preferred that you fattened up the article actually.....so says the guy who wrote Ian Thorpe which passed FAC at 105kb (55kb text) and was declared the worst and cruftiest article on TFA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it specifically the history section which you feel is too short? Because it's approximately the same length as in existing football FAs such as Arsenal F.C..... Or is it that you feel that the article as a whole needs to be longer? Just trying to understand exactly where the problem lies so as to see if I can try and rectify it..... ChrisTheDude 21:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred you to beef up the early history! I like comprehensiveness. If there is simply no coverage of the old days, then simply restore the big recent info. I don't want loss of information. If this club is obscure to the extent that there is no book about it then we'll just have to live with it though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the info I trimmed out of the modern history section and have had a further hunt round but genuinely can't find any greater detail on the club's early history than what is already in there. While I wouldn't say the club is fantastically obscure now, detailed accounts of county league-level football from fifty years ago are pretty much non-existent.... ChrisTheDude 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Finding a pre-1990's source of prose for a club of Leek's stature would be very difficult, if indeed one exists. Thus meeting the above request could only be done by incorporating existing statistics in the article into the history. Whilst I agree this could be done, it might detract from the quality of the prose. Additionally, in the absence of a source any further comment on these statistics could constitute OR, and thus lead to the article failing to meet criteria 1(c). BeL1EveR 13:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think from where this article was to where it is now is amazing! Well done (Everlast1910 13:37, 6 August 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.