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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:24, 26 June 2010 [1].

Manchester United F.C.[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tomlock01 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone significant improvements over the past few months. It has had several peer reviews, and I now feel it meets all the criteria for a featured article. Thanks, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you consulted PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)? If not, the FAC should be removed. If so, why isn't PeeJay a co-nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, during my peer review, I praised Tomlock01 for his hard work and thorough research. He replied: "Most of the credit should go to PeeJay for this article, who has been tirelessly working on it for years. I've only been working on it for a few months." PeeJay2K3 then said: "You give me too much credit, Tom. I have merely kept the article in order for years. It is other editors, not I, who have done most of the cleanups and addition of content." For what it's worth.. Also: [2] Scartol • Tok 01:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Scartol. And for what its worth Sandy, I had no idea you could co-nominate an article, what difference does it make who nominates it? Tomlock01 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'I just want to make a quick point. People keep saying that the article is not balanced. I absolutely agree that there should be balance in an article, and am fully aware of WP:Recentism. But just to put things in perspective, since Alex Ferguson took over (i.e. 1986 onwards, which is - I accept - by far the largest of the 4 history sections), Manchester United has won 34 honours (that is, honours according to the 'Honours' section at the bottom of the article). In the preceding, that is 1878-1986 (108 years), Manchester United won a total of 25 honours. Trophies are the primary measure of a football clubs success, and whilst - of course - this article should not just document successes, I think this comparison clearly justifies that there is greater quantity of material on the last 25 or so years, as opposed to the preceding c.110. I have read in detail the FAC criteria, and I am confident that this article meets them all. In my opinion, all notable events in the early years have been covered in sufficient detail. Thanks, Tom.' Tomlock01 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. New sources found for both. Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1b (comprehensiveness) concerns -
  • The entire first 70 years of the club's existence is summarised in about 10 sentences, whereas the last 20-odd years have about 10 paragraphs. This is unnecessary slanting towards recent events.
With a football club whose successes have been limited largely to the last 20 years (take a look at the 'Honours' section), I think its likely that any article on it will devote more space to the the past 20 years, simply because there is more to say.
I do realise that Manchester United has become more popular and successful than it used to be. That doesn't mean the article just just gloss over the very origins of the club. BigDom
Given that there are sub-articles for each period, do you propose I add to the earlier sections, or take away from the later ones? Tomlock01 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be inclined to bulk out the earlier sub-sections. Since my original point was that the original section was not detailed enough, it would be equally remiss to omit the later successes of the club from the article. BigDom
I've had a look and I really can't find anything that is particularly notable that we have missed from the earlier sections. The early years covers all the important information about the formation of the club and name change. Aside from the this, the club really did not achieve much, or do anything of note that is not already included. Not to mention the 2 world wars during which no football was played! I don't want to bulk out this section for the sake of it. Alex Ferguson has won 26 major honours during his time in charge, this is more than all the other managers combined - of course this section is going to be longer, and rightly so. Tomlock01 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually this was a lie. I've added in a few lines about the club's run in with bankruptcy in the 1930s, which I thought was already in there. Tomlock01 (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Crest and colours" section claims that the club badge is derived from the City of Manchester coat of arms. Well, it looks nothing like it to me, how about a reference or two to back it up? From what I can see, the coat of arms does not feature either footballs or devils so I can't really see the comparison.
Sorry this is my fault. There was a picture of the club crest in the 60s, which I removed. I've now added it back in.
That still doesn't sort out the issue of a source stating that the badge was based on the coat of arms. BigDom
OK, I've added a ref. I quote "the badge of the Manchester Country Football Association, featuring the Manchester coat of arms, was sewn onto the chest."Tomlock01 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So the club found a temporary ground for one match in 1902. Where did they play for the next seven years before moving to Old Trafford? This is a fairly major fact.
They played at bank street. The ground was re-opened, I've changed the preceding sentence to reflect this.
That's fine. BigDom
  • The "Ownership and finances" section only starts at 1989. What about the other 120 years?
  • Listing so many staff in the "Club officials" section seems overly excessive. The names of the "Commercial director", "Head of human performance", etc. are just not important.
I've cut the list down, but kept commercial director, because this is relevant to the 'global brand' section.
Agree that list has been trimmed appropriately. BigDom
1c (reliable sources) concerns -
  • What makes StretfordEnd.co.uk a reliable source?
The fact that it is the official club statistics website, and is now used by the club itself as the primary source of statistics.
Can you provide a link to the section of the website where it lists the sources used then, beacuse I can't find it. Without knowing where the site was compiled from, it goes down as original research. BigDom 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Similarly, what makes ManUtdZone.com a reliable source?
I've no idea, but I don't think this site is active anymore, so I'll look for alternative sources.
Replaced or removed any references from this site, as I agree it isn't reliable. StretfordEnd.co.uk though is entirely valid. Tomlock01 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A lot of the article is referenced to primary sources e.g. the Manchester United official website
Is this a problem then? The Manchester United official website would strike me as a pretty reliable source. Would the official museum, which is maintained by the club, be a reliable source?
Have a look at WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources, such as newspaper articles, are much preferred to press releases by the club. BigDom
OK, but ManUtd.com isn't used to reference any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", therefore I don't see it as a problem. It's mainly used to verify club appointments, for which I couldn't find any secondary sources. Tomlock01 (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the references are to match reports on the Man Utd official website, these are going to be inherently biased reports. I find it difficult to believe that there are no other reports available that you could use. I understand that for some of the more obscure things, e.g. new kits, there might not be other available sources so the official site would be OK in these cases. Bear in mind that a featured article is supposed to be a comprehensive summary of all existing material about the topic in question, not just the things you can find easily. Sometimes, trips to libraries to browse newspaper archives etc. are required. BigDom 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The match reports you mention are used because they mention attendances (which is what is being referenced). The club is the ONLY source of match attendances. Tomlock01 (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm willing to let this point slide because of Brianboulton's comment below, as he is admittedly more knowledgable about sourcing than myself. BigDom 21:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2a (lead) concern -
  • This one speaks for itself really – the lead is far too short for an article of this length and neglects all manner of details.
Any suggestions on what should go in the lead? When there is so much to say, its hard to know what pieces of information should go in over others?
According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should be able to stand alone as a short article about the topic in question. So the lead here should at least cover something from every section. BigDom
Right, well I've added in a section in the lead about Ownership, which was the only missing that was covered in the article itself. Having read WP:LEAD, I think it meets all the criteria set out by this page, and it certainly reads as a short article on the topic. Tomlock01 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once these comments have been addressed, I will have a look at the prose and reconsider my stance. BigDom 14:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General sources comments

Some of my concerns on reliability have been raised above. On balance I think you are just about all right on your use of primary sources. The rest of the sources generally look OK, but there are numerous formatting issues that require attention:-

I'd like to look again when these tidying-up operations are done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All done, I think. Tomlock01 (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't matter that David Beckham no longer plays for the club. He was one of the driving forces behind the club's brand development in Asia, and helped establish the brand in this region.
The article says "is", not "was". Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, good point. Tomlock01 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "a 2002 report by a researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University found that a higher proportion of Manchester City's season ticket holders came from Manchester postcode areas (40% compared to Manchester United's 29%), although the lower percentage could be attributed to Manchester United's higher overall number of season ticket holders (27,667 compared to City's 16,481)." That doesn't make sense, and isn't what the source says.
Agreed, I've removed this entire paragraph because I don't think the point being made is clear, or valid.
  • "The club developed a strong on-pitch rivalry with Arsenal in the late 1980s ...". not sure what "on-pitch" is supposed to mean here. All teams playing against each other are by definition rivals.
I've removed this also, just because I don't think its notable.
  • "... the team played their "home" games at Manchester City's Maine Road ground ...". In what universe is "team" plural?
Done.
  • "The club's third kit is traditionally all-blue, as worn for their first European Cup win in 1968". Similarly, "club" is singular.
Let's not rake up old graves, hey?
  • "Manchester United's current home kit features a red shirt with a shallow black chevron and the club crest on the left ...". It doesn't "feature" it, that's what it is.
Done.
  • "The stadium's record attendance was recorded on 25 March 1939 ...". Awkward, to say the least.
Done.

Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have any other thoughts? Perhaps you could elaborate on your first point? Thanks, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made my position clear on the article's talk page. It's being held back by the intransigence of one editor. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, well thanks for your thoughts thus far. To be fair though, if you are not prepared to elaborate further, perhaps you should have chosen not to get involved in the FA review this time round? Tomlock01 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps this shouldn't be at FAC now, as it's not ready? Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you could explain why you think it's not ready? Tomlock01 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've already given you a few examples, but just take a look at the lead if you want more: "Manchester United is one of the most successful clubs in the history of English football ...". "Manchester United were the first English club to win the European Cup ...". "... the club was purchased by the Glazer Family". That should be "Glazer family". This article isn't ready. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Malleus, whether you like it or not, the discretionary plural it is an established part of the English language. I tried to stay out of the petulant argument on this last time, and its not something I want to argue about here. Even so, I don't see how this alone is enough for you to oppose this article's promotion, neither would an incorrect capital 'F', which I have now changed. You are clearly determined to see this article fail. Tomlock01 (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you seen Aston Villa F.C., Manchester City F.C. and Gillingham F.C., all featured articles? Take a look at the leads on each of those articles. Tomlock01 (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again you miss the point. I am quite happy with "Manchester United were ...", but even the lead is not consistent in that usage. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you really believe that this is an improvement? "Beckham's popularity across the Asia has been integral to the club's commercial success in that part of the world." FAC is not a peer review. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Malleus, I know FAC is not peer review, hence why the article has undergone two peer reviews since the last FAN, both of which were positive. Regards the above point about the discretionary plural, I quote: "A number of words like army, company, crowd, fleet, government, majority, mess, number, pack, and party may refer either to a single entity or the members of the set that compose it. Thus, as H. W. Fowler describes, in British English they are "treated as singular or plural at discretion"; Fowler notes that occasionally a "delicate distinction" is made possible by discretionary plurals: "The Cabinet is divided is better, because in the order of thought a whole must precede division; and The Cabinet are agreed is better, because it takes two or more to agree."[20] Also in British English, names of towns and countries take plural verbs when they refer to sports teams but singular verbs when they refer to the actual place: England are playing Germany tonight refers to a football game, but England is the most populous country of the United Kingdom refers to the country. In North American English, such words are invariably treated as singular."

"Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." You repeatedly saying 'this article is not ready' is not helping ANYONE. All you seemed to have raised of note so far is a highly questionable point (covered above) and a few typos. Tomlock01 (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And yet again, you miss Malleus' point. BigDom 21:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How so? Tomlock01 (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is riddled with prose and MoS issues, to say nothing of its recentism. Here's another example: "... their first successful defence of a knockout cup competition". How do you defend a competition? I was one of the editors chased away from this article, so I don't intend to say anything else other than that my oppose stands, and the FAC delegates may make of it what they will. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same way a boxer defends a boxing title? I appreciate you taking the time to review the article Malleus, and I'm sorry you were 'chased' away (I thought we were making good progress last time you were helping out with it), but I really don't think it's sufficient to say the article is 'riddled with prose and MoS issues'. I've been working hard on this article over the past few months and I welcome any comments that will help to improve the article, but a blanket dismissal of this articles chances is just frustrating. Tomlock01 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. Of course you can defend a title, but how do you defend a competition? Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well because if you win that competition, you win the appropriate title. If you win the Champions League, you become the holders of the Champions League trophy. Therefore, in next years competition, you are attempting to 'defend' that title. If you win the competition again, you have successfully 'defended' it. Tomlock01 (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever. I'm done here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Thanks again for your comments. Tomlock01 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, with the disclaimer that I don't generally review sports articles and so may be unaware of topic-specific conventions. However, my concerns are fairly universal: prose, MoS, images, some sourcing...

Well, both. It certainly makes sense to say that 'Ferguson has won 26 honours'.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could not think of an appropriate name for that section, any ideas? Which sections would you propose merging?Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The hatnote for "Former players" could be included above the first-team table; "Award winners" could potentially be made a single prose paragraph
I have no idea what an OTRS number is, but I believe that the picture was uploaded by the Copyright owner, if that helps. I'll ask PeeJay. Tomlock01 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image description page claims that the image is used with the permission of the copyright holder. We would thus expect to see confirmation of that permission (or, if the uploader was indeed the copyright owner, confirmation of his or her identity). See WP:PERMISSIONS
This is an easy one to get around. Since the photograph was first published in the UK before 1923, you can claim that it is in the public domain in the US. See this template for more info: ((PD-US-1923-abroad)). In all honesty, I think the claim from the Lordprice Collection to hold copyright of the image is a fallacy; it's pretty likely that either the photographer died more than 70 years ago, or if the author is unknown, it was definitely published more than 70 years ago. BigDom 17:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I think I've done it. Is it correct? Tomlock01 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, thanks. Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? The fact that the club won the FA cup title in this season, and that it was their first FA Cup title has never been challenged, nor is it ever likely to be.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. Yes the source website is down permanently as far as I know; it certainly hasnt been active for months. What do we do here?Tomlock01 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Find another web source, look for an archive of the missing page (see WP:LINKROT), find a print source that details copyright status. If all of those steps fail, the image may have to be removed and deleted from Wikipedia.
Found another web source, is it correct now? Tomlock01 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes there is weight on recent details, but I wouldn't say it was undue. Did you look at the paragraph I wrote on this issue, and if so do you still take this opinion?Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did and I do, although to a lesser extent than previous commentators.
Well the way that football seasons work in the UK is that they bridge calendar years. I've changed the wording to make this clearer.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well the construction costs in the box include the land purchase. Regards date, DONE. Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? Given that the infobox specifies construction cost, why would it include land costs?
DONE.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. All those over 10, I've kept in number format. Those under 10, are now in words. Tomlock01 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about 10 itself? You use both "10" and "ten"
Of course. 10 now in words. DONE. Tomlock01 (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. OK. DONE.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. DONETomlock01 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed the entire section on Ladies. I don't think its notable, and it helps cuts down the ToC.Tomlock01 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He WAS the chairman, but is now the honorary president. This is supported by the given source.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgive my ignorance; where is it inconsistent?Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You use bolding for all of the cup names, except in the Doubles section
Duh, sorry. I've changed it so that it is consistent, but do you think it looks right now? Tomlock01 (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They didn't win a Double in the 1950s.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, my mistake, I misread the earlier section
www.t3.rim.or.jp etc, agreed and changed to more reliable source.
historicalkits.co.uk, unitedkits.com and prideofmanchester.com are all excellent sites, with contributors pages and photographic evidence.
footballsite and european-football-stats are great statistics websites and again meticulously maintained and updated.
I'm really hate the assumption that fan sites are intrinsically unreliable, when in fact they are usually the most reliable source of stats. This is why stretfordend.co.uk, a fansite, has now been adopted by the club as the official source of statistics.Tomlock01 (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, thought I'd got them all. DONE.Tomlock01 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DONE and DONE.Tomlock01 (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I suggest about 60% for before and 40% after Ferguson. I initially said 50% each, but the earlier period has more events:

Thanks for you comments. Current word count is c. 1050 words in history section before Fergie, and c. 620 after him, so just under 40% is currently devoted to Fergie, which I'd agree is bang on. Everything you have mentioned is already covered, except the information about George Best and Celtic, which I will add. Do you have time to review the rest of the article? Best, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, at present I need to do other things, some in WP and some in RL. If I can deal with these, I'll have another look. --Philcha (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. Thanks again for your comments. Good luck with whatever else you're up to. Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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