Good voice well-written.--Lãzîalë93 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support --Lãzîalë93 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose None of the concerns from the previous FAC have been addressed. The article has many unreferenced sections, has prose issues, and it is complete (the it.wiki article is 120KB in length and includes much more detail about the club's history). Please consider submitting this for WP:GA instead of WP:FA, as it clearly does not meet the featured article criteria. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose actually there's a lot to improve. Consider first to improve it into Good Article status, rather than losing time in opening FACs (this is the second time you're pushing it here without to make any improvement in the article). --Angelo (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs lead extending, inadequate referencing, short, stubby sections with short paragraphs, and POV list of notable players. Peanut4 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can I suggest you initiate a peer review which would hopefully give you a more complete list of issues that need to be resolved with this article? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not chance from the previous FAC. MOJSKA666 (msg) 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I found 8 dead links in the reference section, which means a clean-up is needed. --Slicedpineapple (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Laziale93 - what's the voice? A new word? Whould you say good article, well-written... MOJSKA666 (msg) 14:43, 8 March 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.