Talk:Sunderland A.F.C. supporters/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: REDMAN 2019 (talk · contribs) 11:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll be taking a look at this. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

lead

• "Sunderland A.F.C. have one of the oldest fan bases in England, starting from its creation in 1879." Needs a reference.
• Most of the supporters groups mentioned are very small, might want to remove some of the smaller ones.
• "It was discontinued in January 2017. " Source?

Politics

• Ref 26, while written by the Guardian, appears to be a humorous article about fans of premier league clubs and is from 2014. A more reliable and up to date source may need to be found.

References

• Ref 3 needs a author.
• Ref 14 doesn't appear to be working.

Comments

I am not sure that this article meets GA criteria. So I will be asking for a second opinion. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

General observation of the lede is that it doesn't summarise the actual article. Instead it seems to be a place where information has been shunted never to be referred to again. Meanwhile there is information in the main article not summarised (as much as it's just a glorified list further on). There is an issue of poor English throughout, for example:

1. "Sunderland A.F.C. have one of the oldest fan bases in England, starting from its creation in 1879". The sentence is intended to state that Sunderland AFC was founded in 1879, but the sentence infers the fan base was created in 1879. Meanwhile "one of the oldest fan bases" is fundamentally a POV and misleading. Firstly it doesn't qualify it as a football fan base (rugby teams pre-date most soccer teams) and as Sunderland is far from one of the oldest clubs in England it's unlikely anyone will be able to source the claim formally. Further the wording can be read to infer that the fan base itself is old (i.e. pensioners) rather than the support has a historic background.
2. A lot of the sourcing on the fan clubs is supported only by a blog (Roker Report, items 3 to 11) which is not a reliable source, nor does it indicate notability or completeness.
3. "The club had an official quarterly magazine, called the Legion of Light, which season ticket holders received at no cost.[13] It was discontinued in January 2017." This sentence is written in reverse, and doesn't identify when the magazine started. Sourcing is directly to an archive of the club shop which is blatant Original Research, and doesn't say anything about when it ended or it being free to season ticket holders.
4. "One of the club's current fanzines is A Love Supreme." source given is a link to itself. Primary Sourcing is fine for facts so I fundamentally have no issue with this basic observation, although a better source would be nice, but it also mentions other fanzines but doesn't say who or what they are - so unclear if ALS is the most senior, oldest etc. I know the ALS page has more sources to support it.

There are issues throughout the remaining sections, but not breaking them down right now but suffice to say the issues above are prevalent again. Individual sections are confused about the order of events, and the significance / notability / relevance of certain things, and sentences often have sources that do not say the thing that is being ascribed to them. For example (but not exhaustive):

1. The demographics have no links to any actual demographic information (Durham is mentioned once by The Telegraph and it says nothing about "across the north east" or "particularly" anywhere.
2. Nickname is about the club, not the supporters.
3. Politics starts with history, moves to Di Canio, switches back to history. Di Canio may have been significant in the short time he was there, but his overall historicity is less relevant to an article about Supporters.
4. Songs; seems to be in a random order between a popular song, a song made popular for a short time, a longstanding political chant, and then the chants that everybody knows. Section probably needs reversing. Koncorde (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Maxim.il89: How's everything going here. It's been over a week. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Failed due to nominator being unable to complete. See Maxim's talk page for more. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Rescued links

Because the sourcing is generally poor I have started trying to replace existing sources where I can. In the process I am removing unreliable and self published sources. However I am going to put those sources removed here.

• - "including North America, which started in 2013" not supported by the article
• - self published blog
• - self published blog
• - self published blog
• - self published blog
• - self published blog
• - self published blog
• - self published blog
• - self published blog
• - self published blog
• - "Support is drawn from across the North East, in particular County Durham," kind of obvious, but also not supported by the source.
• - "The club has many supporter branches across the world, including the United States, Australia, Canada, Cambodia, and Greece." Dead link and there should be a section on official supporters branches. "Demographics" doesn't mean anything in this context.
• - "Sunderland fans often sell out allocations for away games: in the 2013–14 season, 9,000" source doesn't make any claims about how often they sell out.
• - "often sing "The Red Flag" during games" - source is a match report of one instance.
• - single instance of song.

Any questions let me know. Koncorde (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)