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 Karanacs 15:31, 30 August 2011 [1].

Liverpool F.C.[edit]

Liverpool F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I finally think that this article is ready to be a Featured article. It has had numerous nominations before and failed but the issues form those nominations have been cleared up and the article is probably in the best shape its ever been in. The article has had a copyedit by the GOCE which should have cleared up any prose issues. The article has also received a PR which sould have cleared any issues about the structure and referencing of the article. Cheers NapHit (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - why is the "Home colours" image in the infobox different from the one in the "Colours" section? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one in the infobox represents the kit that Liverpool are wearing this season as they change every few seasons. The one in the colours is just to represent the colours that Liverpool have worn since 1964. Persoanlly, I would like to change the kit in the colours section to the original kit that Liverpool wore in the 1890s, as I don't see the point in having two similar kits in the article. NapHit (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum. This article suffers from a problem common in articles about sports teams: are they to be considered singular or plural? Looking just at the lead, for instance, we have "Liverpool was founded in 1892 ... They have played at their home ground, Anfield, since their formation", singular and plural in consecutive sentences. The best rule of thumb, in my opinion, is to consider "club" and "team" to be singular as in "Liverpool Football Club is an English professional football club", but "Liverpool" on its own to be plural, as in "Liverpool have won five European Cups". But whichever convention is to be adopted here it needs to be applied consistently throughout the article. For example, the Support section starts off with "Liverpool are one of the best supported clubs in the world", whereas throughout most of the rest of the article "Liverpool" is treated as a singular entity, as in "For much of Liverpool's history, its home colours have been all red". I note that this very same point was raised during this article's last FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the copyeditor from the GOCE mentioned the singular/plural was a concern so he decided to refer to Liverpool in the singular throughout the article. The sentence ou mentioned in the support is my fault I recently added that sentence and I'll admit the singular/plural area is a weakness of mine so that's why it was there, I've amended it now. I think the rest of the article should be alright as the copyedit should have cleared the issue up. Would you be happy with the article if the club was referred to entirely in the singular or would you prefer the method you outlined? NapHit (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly happy for the club to be referred to entirely in the singular, but the article still isn't consistent. For instance, the lead still says "The club has played at their home ground ... since their formation". In the Support section it says "Liverpool were banned for an additional year, preventing them from participating in the 1990–91 European Cup, even though they won the League in 1990. I haven't checked the whole article, so there may well be other instances that need fixing as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've gone through the article and I fairly sure I have cleared up this issue now, the club should be referred to entirely in the singular. NapHit (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's still not fixed. From the Stadiums section: "It was originally used by Everton F.C. before they moved to Goodison Park". Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a few reads of the article I'm confident that this issue is now resolved. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've only dipped into the article so far, I'll read through the whole thing later. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Colours and crest
  • "Liverpool's away colours is traditionally either white shirts and black shorts or all yellow". Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that "Liverpool's away colours has traditionally been either white shirts and black shorts or all yellow" is by no stretch of the imagination an improvement. The problem is that the subject, "colours", is plural. The same problem also crops up in the lead, which says: "The team's home colours has been entirely red since 1964". I'll leave the question of whether "entirely red" is really a colour for now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've altered the text now so hopefully the singular and plural issue is dealt with. NapHit (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A third kit is designed for European away matches, though it would also be worn in domestic away matches on occasions when the current away kit clashes with a team's home kit." The switch in tense from "is" to "would be" makes no sense. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this, Giants raised the same point below NapHit (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rivalries
  • I know it's what the BBC's staff reporter quoted wrote, but you really can't justify "Liverpool was considered the world's pre-eminent port" on several counts, not least of which is that world doesn't and didn't have a single "pre-eminent port". And of course it begs the question "considered by whom?" Equally significantly London had become the UK's most important port by 1884, eight years before Liverpool F.C. was founded. After the Manchester Ship Canal was opened in 1894 Liverpool and Manchester competed as ports, but even their combined trade didn't match that of London. The story of the 19th-century rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester is rather a complicated one, as the history of the ship canal shows, and it can't be reduced to a simplistic "Liverpool was a great port and Manchester produced lots of textiles". Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tricky one, as I agree the rivalry is more complicated than the article states. As a start I've changed world's pre-eminent port to major port. It is a tough issue but unfortunately I'm not sure how much more detail I can go into, I think the detail would be better suited to the parent article. I'll have a look and see if I can add another sentence which would improve the history of the rivalry. NapHit (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence about the ship canal, I think this is the best that can be done given the fact that it only warrants a small section in the article. NapHit (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not right though. It wasn't the opening of the ship canal that led to rivalry between the two cities; conventional wisdom has it that Manchester's business community perceived the charges levied by the port of Liverpool and the railways that transported freight between Liverpool and Manchester to be excessive, and decided to build a canal to bypass Liverpool and the railways. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this can be summarised in two sentences. Therefore, I've removed the sentences and just said the rivalry is a manifestation of their competition in industrial times. I think anymore is irrelevant and anyone wanting more can click on the link to the rivalry page. NapHit (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me; it's a complicated story. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liverpool football club in popular culture
  • It's inconsistent to have "stadia" as in "went on to campaign for safer stadia" and a full section entitled "Stadiums". Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the plot revolved around a young boy, Francis Scully, who tried to gain a trial match with Liverpool". How do you "gain" a trial match? Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, there is not much information on this TV series unfortunately and the page for the shoe says the same thing. I think if I change to earn a trial then that might clear it up? NapHit (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found one. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1999 corrected the error. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
removed serialised in and just got the times with st. john as author. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fixed NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was but judging by your comment I assume its not considered one, so I've replaced the refs. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fixed NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed all your comments, cheers NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning Support Generally looking sound from a football point of view, the latest peer review dealt with most of my concerns.

Ye, I can't find a reference to back this statment up so I've removed it. NapHit (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed them. NapHit (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support, provided the prose people are satisfied. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Thanks for the review Giants, I've addressed all of your comments. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Having seen the article during its last two FACs, I can say that this is in much better shape than it was back then. With the copy-editing that has taken place, and with these comments addressed, I think this meets all FA criteria. Nice work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I've removed the two images and replaced them with ones that have no problems. The images are from [www.lfchistory.net] and the authors are not given on that site so I'm afraid I can't find this information. NapHit (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Fenway apparently no longer own Liverpool F.C. I'm not sure of the relevance of File:John W Henry-Fenway.jpg? Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liverpool F.C. is obviously now a limited company, which it wasn't initially. Do you have any information on when it went public? What the flotation raised? Who bought the shares? Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you hear that Fenway no longer own Liverpool? Aside from that this confirms that they are in charge and the breakdown of the Directors. The people who hold shares are not disclosed except for John Henry who is the only one who owns over 10%. The only person outside who has shares as far as I know is LeBron James I can add a sentence stating this if you like? NapHit (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather confusing, because the article clearly says that "Liverpool was sold to New England Sports Ventures on 15 October 2010 for £300M". Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see where the confusion is. NESV was the name of Fenway Sports Group when they bought Liverpool and afterwards they changed the name. I'll mention this in the ownership section. NapHit (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. NapHit has worked hard to address my concerns, and I think this article now meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fascinating — Everton started at Anfield... Liverpool were Everton Athletic and wore blue... They looked pretty good against Bolton too. I have soft spot for the club, having lived in the city for a year — didn't get robbed either {: — I read this twice without finding any serious concerns, credit to you and Malleus for his input. Now, can we have Suarez? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an image review or a sourcing spotcheck for close paraphrasing, copyvio, or accurate represntation of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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