Middlesbrough F.C.

We're attempting to get the article up to Good Article status(and then hopefully onto FAC/FA status, and would like some comments on how the article can be brought up to those standards. Thanks. --Simmo676 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of points here, but you did say you were aspiring to FA status... :-)

• The "Stadium" section could do with expansion.

 Done Expanded.

• The "Media relations" section is rather fluffy and contains little of substance. That some ex-Boro players work in the media is unremarkable; there are a plethora of pundits in the media, and pretty much every club can list a number of ex-players who do such work. The other bits can probably be merged into the Supporters section, though the tone needs a little work in places. Phrases such as FMTTM is now available online as well as in its original paper format come across as promotional in style.
• Remove the "famous fans" listed in the Supporters section, consensus across a number of other football articles and the Football WikiProject is that such lists should not be included. If someone's support for the club is of particular note, it should be mentioned in their article instead of that of the club.

 Done Removed. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a couple of instances where the articles displays a "fan point of view": "resulting in relegation, which still remains a sore spot with fans to this day.", "He was to prove a revelation". The Supporters section is perhaps a little too flattering in tone.

 Done Tried to remove the flattering inclinations. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid using colloquial terms such as "bounce back"and "yo-yoing"; write Manchester City, not Man City.

 Done Changed to more suitable phrases. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the lists of the youth team squad and minor staff members. Putting "no players out on loan" is redundant information.

 Done Removed loan info. Will move youth team to new youth team article as per other teams soon. --Simmo676 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the "Notable former players" chosen using specific criteria or listed arbitrarily based on the personal opinions of editors?

Were at the moment arbitrary, working on List of Middlesbrough F.C. players which includes finding appearances/goals, to provide better notability criteria. --Simmo676 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A "for more details" header is only for internal links, not external links (Managers section). If the site was used as a reference, list it in the references section. If not, remove it entirely.

 Done Changed to reference. --Simmo676 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A pedantic one: it's anachronistic to describe the early Middlesbrough kit as "AC Milan style" - Milan didn't form until 1899.

 Done Fixed. --Simmo676 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "However, rumours abound that the band will not be on the next incarnation of the home strip - a move proving controversial with Boro fans": remove, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
• "Middlesbrough also have a historical rivalry with Chelsea" Is this really a rivalry, or merely a way of saying the clubs have contested a number of important matches? Needs citations.

 Done Removed it since no source can be found and have never heard anyone describe it as a rivalry. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• People like User:Qwghlm know more about this sort of thing than me, but you might want to double check the validity of the fair use rationale on the image of the programme.

Will check that with Qwghlm. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of the paragraphs in the History section are only one or two sentences long, giving a choppy feel. Some of these should be merged; it may require some rewording to get them to flow more easily.

 Done Done some work. Hopefully it flows better now. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a number of copyediting issues. Take this paragraph as an example:
  • Before the season restarted, Boro were victorious in the Northern Victory League, but the team's chance at the league championship had faded and they finished mid-table. They remained there for the next few seasons, before finally slipping to relegation in 1923-24, finishing 22nd of 22, ten points adrift of their nearest rivals.

No season restarted, the suspension of football ended and a new season began. Consider Before competitive football resumed.... Saying that a club was victorious in the Victory league is jarring due to the repetition of "victory", using "won" would be simpler. Similarly, "bottom" has more effect than "22nd of 22". The paragraph could instead read something like

• Before competitive football resumed Middlesbrough won the Northern Victory League, but the team were unable to sustain their form and finished the 1918-19 season in mid-table. The club remained in the First Division for the next few seasons, but were relegated in 1923-24 after finishing bottom, ten points adrift of their nearest rivals.

If you want further help with copyediting, drop a note on my talk page.

 Done Fixed up those and will have a look for some others. Will drop you a note if I need more help. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! It certainly did help. Will work on the rest of the comments. Thanks again. --Simmo676 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]