Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1959–60 Burnley F.C. season/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2022 [1].

1959–60 Burnley F.C. season edit

Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley are probably getting relegated this season, but there was a time when they were crowned champions of England, albeit a few generations ago: 1959–60. Burnley had to win their last game to win the title, and they did just that ... just. The team consisted almost entirely of players who came through the club’s youth academy. Burnley bought only two players for a combined fee of 15k. This article passed the GA process a year ago, and since then I’ve trimmed it down a bit and made some smaller fixes. All comments will be appreciated. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "while the others were recruited from Burnley’s youth academy" - did the concept of a "youth academy" really exist in the 1950s?
    Not in the modern sense I would say (such as having many different teams, categorised by age). However, according to the book Bob Lord of Burnley (2019), there was already a "youth academy system" at Burnley while Alan Brown was the club's manager (mid-1950s).
  • "with goals from Brian Pilkington, John Connelly, and Ray Pointer, the club's forward" - they had only one forward??
    Fixed
  • "McIlroy, Burnley's playmaker, was still absent for the team" - think the last three words are redundant
    Removed
  • "Burnley then faced Lancashire rivals Blackpool at home; the team took the lead" - wording is not 100% clear as to which team "the team" is
    Fixed
  • "who objected his "confusing playing style"" => "who objected to his "confusing playing style""
    Done
  • "they beat Nottingham Forest, last season's FA Cup winners" => "they beat Nottingham Forest, the previous season's FA Cup winners"
    Done
  • "despite only having 10 men for most of the game" - why? A sending off? An injury?
    Injury, added
  • "Second Division side Swansea Town at Vetch Field" => "Second Division side Swansea Town at the Vetch Field"
    Done
  • "the Bradford City supporters [....] were denied entry by the local police" - all of them?
    Some, fixed
  • "On an icey Turf Moor pitch" - pretty sure it's spelt icy
    Fixed
  • "The defeat also meant Burnley were deprived of becoming the first English club in the 20th century to achieve the First Division and FA Cup double" - well, not really, because a) they hadn't won the league at this point and b) they might have lost the semi-final or final.
    I agree, removed it
  • "with four defenders, four midfielders and two forwards" - pedantic, maybe, but weren't the former two called full backs and half backs at this point in time?
    One of the books I've used, Never had it so good (2017), contains both terms, such as half-back and midfielder. I've gone with the latter as it's a bit more comfortable:)
  • That's all I got - a great read overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for the review, Chris! I've addressed your comments (hopefully). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Looking now...

  • . The team's top goalscorer was John Connelly with 24 competitive goals - is "competitive" necessary here?

Otherwise can't find aught to complain about.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas, thanks for taking a look at the article. I've removed "competitive". WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks all fine on comprehensiveness and prose....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

What makes the following reliable sources?

  • fchd.info
  • thesefootballtimes.co
  • historicalkits.co.uk
  • rsssf.com

Other than that all sources look reliable and I can see no formatting issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi Mike, thanks for taking a look.
    • FCHD is regarded as a reliable source for historical data in English football and has been referenced in many featured articles (e.g. Luton Town F.C. and Cardiff City F.C.). The website contains an explanation and a source page. It's used in these local newspapers: here and here. The creator of the website (I believe he's also active on Wiki) has spoken about his site here: [2].
    • The info on These Football Times should indicate its reliability (often working directly with the clubs on production, regularly featuring on TheGuardian.com, the magazine's/site's writers receiving numerous nominations and awards).
    • Historical Football Kits is referenced in most featured articles such as York City F.C. and Manchester City F.C.. The site is maintained by Dave and Matt Moor, who cite their sources as can be seen for example on their Burnley page (at the bottom). It is e.g. referenced here, here, here and here.
    • RSSSF is the online database of football statistics that's used as a general guide by several mainstream sports media outlets, including ESPN. Its charter may provide some extra clarification. The site is referenced in most of the featured articles (e.g. Burnley F.C. and Manchester United F.C.). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck rsssf.com; that's clearly treated as reliable by major media sources. For FCHD, I don't think the use by local newspapers is enough -- do we have other sources (including written sources) that cite it or treat it as a reliable source? I've struck These Football Times -- I hadn't realized the site was still live (the link was dead and archived). I've struck historicalkits.co.uk; other than the BBC those aren't the biggest media sources, but the BBC plus the other info I think just about gets it over the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've found FCHD being referenced in some books, but I don't know the reliability of those, so I've replaced the source with the Simpson (2007) ref. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • Per MOS:DASH, you can have spaced en dashes, or unspaced em dashes, but you can't have spaced em dashes, sadly.
    • Fixed
  • "Managed by Harry Potts, the team endured a tense season, in which...": how about "The team, and their manager Harry Potts, endured a tense season in which..."? Seems a little smoother to my ear.
    • Done
  • "as a result of his authoritative attitude": looking at the sources, I think this should be "authoritarian". Or perhaps even "autocratic", which is used by one of the sources, but I don't think a single word constitutes a copyvio.
    • Went for "authoritarian"
  • "Burnley's scouts — including Jack Hixon — were particularly based in North East England, Scotland and Northern Ireland." What does "particularly" mean here? Do you mean they placed more scouts in those areas? Or perhaps "focused particularly on"?
    • "Focused particularly on" is a good suggestion, I've added it. NE England, Scotland and NI were indeed interesting areas for Burnley to scout, and many players such as Adamson, Blacklaw and Pointer hailed from those areas.
  • "with goals from Brian Pilkington, John Connelly, and Ray Pointer, one of the club's forwards": seems odd to single out a forward, who would have been expected to be among the scorers, and not mention the midfielders. I think I'd just end the sentence after naming Pointer.
    • Done
  • Perhaps mention Finney's stature when saying Elder did well? E.g. "Elder played well against Preston's England international Tom Finney"?
    • Done
  • "despite only having 10 men for most of the game, after Pointer came off injured": I thought substitutes had started to be used in 1958? Had the team already used their substitute?
    • Only in 1965 the rule allowing subs was introduced [3]
  • "carrying knocks" is clear to me but I wonder how a non-sports fan would interpret it. I like using colloquial language when possible but this might be a bit too jargony for non-sports readers.
    • Tried to tweak the wording
  • "at the Vetch Field": I think I've always heard this as "at Vetch Field"; can you confirm the "the" is the normal usage?
    • After a quick Google search I see both instances are used, but I've removed "the".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for the copyedit and the review. I've hopefully addressed your comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Changes all look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

ALT text seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, thank you for the review. The source used for the kit is this one, which is also used in the article (ref 20 - Historical Football Kits). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, seems like this is a pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1959–60_Burnley_F.C._season/archive1&oldid=1086570457"