The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

List of F.C. United of Manchester seasons[edit]

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

• Featured list candidates/List of F.C. United of Manchester seasons/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): odder (talk), Delusion23

I am nominating this for featured list as part of a wider effort on improving Wikipedia coverage around F.C. United of Manchester. The list has been significantly improved by myself and @Delusion23, and has been kept updated ever since it was split out from the main article by @Sloclops in November 2015. We have modelled the list after other English football clubs' seasons lists, and I believe it meets all the criteria. Over the past few days, the list has had the lead added, and I have verified and referenced all data included in the list, and archived all references used to ensure stability of information. This is my first nomination for a featured list, so apologies if I got anything wrong. Suggestions and corrections are welcome, and either @Delusion23 or myself will be quite happy to implement them. Thanks for reviewing! odder (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • A couple of quick drive-by comments, mainly to remind me to come back later and do more :-)
    • Seasons which are in progress are never normally included in lists of this type, suggest you remove it until the end of the season. If it is left in, change the league name to just National League North, rather than the odd-looking "National League National League North" as it is at the moment
      •  Done Removed the current season but moved the info to the talk page as it would be a shame to lose the work done. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • We need to amend the lead a little bit, then... odder (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • … and this is now done. odder (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The club is owned and democratically run by their supporters" - you are referring to the club as both singular and plural in the same sentence, this is a grammatical nightmare :-P

      • In my defence, I couldn't decide on either form and apparently left it in mid-state :) Thanks for spotting this, Chris! odder (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      •  Done For consistency within the sentence I have changed "their" to "its". Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back with more later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers Chris, looking forward to more help getting this work to FL status :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose How is this nota fork? This club is semiprofessional with 10 seasons and gets a separate list???? Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nergaal: While F.C. United is indeed a semi-professional football club, there is no doubt about their notability, despite the club only being founded in 2005. F.C. United consistently draw the highest home attendance at this level of English football, beating many clubs in the National League (level 5) as well as many clubs in Leage Two (level 4); they also consistently draw (relatively high) away attendances. The club is also immensely popular with the media, and has been the subject of books, short documentaries, and an uncountable number of press articles, reports and mentions. So that's it for the notability aspect; I don't think it's ever been debatable.

• As for this list being a fork: I am aware that it includes some information that is already present in the main article, however I have modelled the introduction after similar season lists for other English football clubs, and thought it was necessary that the introduction provide a short summary of the club's main achievements (I think the articles that I got this from were List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons and List of Liverpool F.C. seasons, perhaps also others). As this is my first nomination for a featured list, I realise I might have gotten things wrong, and if that's the case, then I'm very open and happy to fix them. If you have any particular suggestions in mind, please share them so I can improve the list. Thank you, odder (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not saying the club is not notable. What I am saying is splitting a 10-entry list on such a low notability item is a fork. Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very brief, inclined to give the lead a once-over as it could be tightened and can't be bothered to list everything.... As far as I can tell the 'This is a list of...' style intro has been deprecated; Villa's list was promoted in September 2007 before it became standard practise to just state the club and summarise its history. See List of Manchester United F.C. seasons, List of Birmingham City F.C. seasons and List of FC Barcelona seasons.  Done Thanks; I reworded the intro to fit the current standard. odder (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] "F.C. United were formed in June 2005...," the club was formed, surely? In British English collective nouns can be referred to in the singular or plural (see second para). This is particularly common in sports (e.g. Chelsea F.C. are the champions of England). Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Would it be more benefical to readers to have the key section above the table? I guess so;  Done. odder (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] References look fine at first glance. For Ref 1, BBC Sport needs 'publisher' parameter, not 'work'. Remove the 'publisher=BBC' parameter, BBC Sport is just fine as it is. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]  Done Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - happy with changes, feels this now meets the criteria based on sourcing, structure and style. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm happy that this meets the FL criteria. I don't have any concerns about the content split, as the main article is reaching the size where such splits should be expected. Miyagawa (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • "F.C. United are owned and democratically run by their supporters and operate" - you're still referring to FCUM as both singular and plural within the same sentence
    • Uhm, unless I'm missing something, these verbs are all in the plural... odder (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking there, feel free to disregard that one :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "F.C. United reached the Second Round of the FA Cup " - no reason for capitals on second round, these are not proper nouns, likewise first round shortly afterwards and fourth round a bit further on, etc
    •  Done 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In the key the football is shown to indicate "league goals". Are the figures in the table definitely league only? If so, change the heading in the table to "top league goalscorer"
    •  Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a Russian fan site (bit random :-)) really the only source for (presumably) the top scorer in the first season?
    •  Done The same data are available to download on F.C. United's own website in the form of a spreadsheet (see bottom of this page). I have added this to the article to supplement the Russian fan page version. I kept the fan page version as I believe it shows the same information in a more "user friendly" form. I have also added the references to the other rows as they are used for the source of all the top scorer stats. Hope this makes it less ambiguous. Thanks for the feedback. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all seems OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sorry I'm late to this, a few comments

• I think the sentence about the multiple stadiums should be referenced.

• Reworded to mention the Tameside Stadium instead of Moss Lane, and  Done odder (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The table really ought to be sortable, see here for an example

•  Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It also shouldn't be less than 100% font size, as readers who are visually impaired may struggle to read it

•  Done odder (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 30 needs an en dash

•  Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it looks in good shape! NapHit (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking over the article in such detail, @NapHit! Everything appears to have been taken care of now. odder (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The position column isn't sorting properly, otherwise everything looks in order. NapHit (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: Whoops! Fixed. odder (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed a few things to comply with accessibility guidelines, but happy to support now. Great work! NapHit (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! odder (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - passed

• Spotchecks: Checked 6, 31, 45, 63; all clean
• Formatting: Every cite with "Pitch Hero Ltd" should just be "Pitch Hero"; wikipedia typically does not use incorporation statuses in company names
  •  Done odder (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comprehensive: Well, nothing is missing, but... www.tonykempster.co.uk/? Looks like someone's personal site. How is it an RS? --PresN 20:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony Kempster, (…) a pioneer of online news for the grassroots game. Tony was a very well-known, and highly respected figure, due to his website www.tonykempster.co.uk. To say that [Tony's website] was an invaluable resource to fans of the non-league game is no understatement. Tony’s website provides unmatched information on results, gates, tables, fixtures and even distances to grounds, from the Premier League right down to step seven of the football pyramid. The site is an invaluable source of information for thousands of football fans each week and carries a huge amount of information which no other site can match. … and that's why it's an RS. odder (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allright then, source review passed, and promoting. --PresN 12:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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