Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carlton Town F.C./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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 July 2022 [1].

Carlton Town F.C. edit

Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Carlton Town Football Club, a small Nottinghamshire team competing at the eighth tier of the English football pyramid. I've long wanted to write-up a local team (in-part inspired by the Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. entry), and I hope I've done this one justice. The article passed GA requirements last month and has since featured on DYK. After re-reading (again), I think the article's ready for FAC comments. Thanks! Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Fixed.
      • Not quite - lead image still uses that. Suggest also scaling up some of the uprights. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed.
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done.
  • File:Carlton_Town_FC_logo.png: second source link is dead
    • Fixed.
  • File:ArthurClamp.jpg: if the photographer is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
    • Removed this image to cut down on clutter. I can't prove anything, but presuming the photographer was an adult of 18, and the latest this photo could've been taken is 1915, he'd have been 95 in 1992.
  • File:SneintonFC1926.jpg: the given US tag relies in part on the image being PD in country of origin on the URAA date, but there's also a tag indicating that it may not be PD in country of origin - that is contradictory
    • Fixed.
      • Nothing seems to have changed here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies, fixed now I believe.
          • Since this is to be moved to Commons, it would be helpful to specify why the image is believed to be PD in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • This tag seems to indicate it would not have been PD on the URAA date? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Nikkimaria: I'm struggling a bit with this. Is the issue that the image was created in and not prior to 1926? If so, is it just a case of keeping it locally uploaded to Wikipedia under the UK rules (prior to 1952) and revoking its candidacy for Commons? Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Unfortunately uploading locally would require US public domain, not UK. The image was created in 1926 but per the image description wasn't published until nine years later - is there another reason why it would be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I fear not. I've removed the image from the article on the probability of it being non-free, which is a bit of a shame. Would just like to get this over the line now. Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      @Nikkimaria:: how's that? Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      Sure, that works. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:SneintonCricketClubandGround1920.png: is this CC or PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • PD, I believe. Fixed.

Comments Support by Eem dik doun in toene edit

Interesting article and it's great to see "lesser-known" football clubs being nominated at FAC.

  • "Sneinton Football Club, the club's" ==> Club ... club's is a bit repetitive
    • Replaced with "its".
  • Is the ref in the lead really needed, since it's supposed to be a summary of what's said in the article?
    • Removed.
  • "It was most recently promoted in 2006–07 from" ==> maybe: "It most recently won promotion in 2006–07 from"?
    • Done.
  • "The team enjoyed success in its first season. Finishing" ==> it's quite a short sentence, so it might better to merge it with the following one.
    • Done.
  • The team is plural, so "they" should be used instead of "it". (e.g. "The team enjoyed success in its" ==> "The team enjoyed success in their")
    • Done.
  • Did anything noteworthy happen between 1950 and 1965?
  • a valid promotion, it duly topped, comfortable League, unimpressive League ==> all sound a bit too journalistic to me.
    • Fair comment. "Valid promotion" is included since Carlton finished in a promotion spot at the end of the previous season but had it denied to them because of a technicality. "Duly" because they rebounded from this, after a big investment, so that they could achieve what they had actually earned in the previous season. I realise I might be digging myself into a bigger journalistic hole here, but I've deleted "comfortable" and replaced "unimpressive" with "poor". Hope that suits.
  • "Improved year on year" ==> who stated this?
    • The club, I think. Deleted!
  • "establishing a record" ==> establishing a club record?
    • Done.
  • Perhaps mention Vardy's stature when talking about the 2008–09 playoff semi-final? E.g. "future England international Jamie Vardy"
    • Done.
  • I believe there's a bit of recentism in the history section as the last 20 years cover about as much text as the previous 75 yrs.
    • This is a very valid criticism, one which I've wrestled with quite a bit. The truth is that the club spent the years between 1947, after the second reformation, and the football-pyramid-entering 1995–96 season in massive obscurity, even locally speaking. Looking through contemporaneous articles on the British Newspaper Archive, Sneinton very rarely gets a bespoke mention week-to-week. We're talking the most parochial of the parochial divisions for the most part. There are entries I've found which chart its league position on a given week, along with all the other teams, but that indicates very little about general performance and might lead to mischaracterisations. My other defence is that more recent events tend to have better coverage online, although with a small club such as Carlton, even this can sometimes be tricky.
  • "Central Midlands Football League", "Northern Counties East Football League", et cetera ==> which tiers do these leagues belong to?
    • Clarified (I hope).
  • Why are the honours and tournament tables collapsed?
    • Just my preference, I'm open to reversing that if you prefer.
  • I'm missing info/sections about Carlton's crest/colours, supporters/rivalries, records. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alas, me too. I can describe the crest and colours but sadly have no historical background with which to buttress it, so the section would just be a restatement of the infobox (which is fine - let me know). According to my sources, I've virtually nothing on fans and rivalries, which is a shame (I'm questioning whether sources even exist on these). Tournament records are in a (collapsed) box at the bottom, and the record attendance is described in the section covering the ground at which it happened.

Really appreciate you looking at this @Eem dik doun in toene: I'm glad you enjoyed the read. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curlymanjaro, no problem and thanks for the clear explanations. I understand it can be quite a task to find enough/the necessary info. I still think the history section from 2002 can be trimmed down a bit to make it all more balanced. About the collapsed tables, I would uncollapse them as most people will check out the club's honours, and it will save a click. I would also make a crest/colours section then, even if it'll be short. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, @Eem dik doun in toene: what do you reckon to the improvements? I had to get slightly creative with sources for Carlton's rivalries, but since these are informal affairs at a low level of competition, I hope that's acceptable. Curlymanjaro (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the article looks better now! I'm not sure if the FM Save ref is "acceptable" but that'll come up at the source review I reckon. Good luck with this nom. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude edit

  • "its early years were [...] described by the Manchester Courier in 1909 as "the leading amateur football club"" - that doesn't work grammatically, Suggest "its early years were marked by considerable local success, leading to the club being described by the Manchester Courier in 1909 as "the leading amateur football club""
    • Done.
  • "Its reputation declined for several decades afterwards, participating" - again, it wasn't the reputation that participated. Suggest "Its reputation declined for several decades afterwards, with the team participating"
    • Done.
  • "Carlton has played its home games" - it's the team rather than the club as a singular entity that plays games, so here it should be treated as plural
    • Done.
  • "Sneinton moved to sign more “promising amateurs of the city”" - why is that last part in quote marks? Who is it a quote from?
    • A nameless newspaperman. Since I've cited the source I might as well shorten the sentence and remove quote marks.
  • "Sneinton, "by no manner of means", insisted" - literally no idea what this means, can you clarify?
    • It means they weren't wealthy. Reworded.
  • "paid for the team's travel to Stockton, where it was defeated 7–2" - the team is plural, not singular
    • Done.
  • Refs after "annual profit" are not in numerical order
    • Fair enough, happy to change that. Previously, I've been instructed to order according to where the cited info is placed within the sentence.
  • Remove the redlink on Trent Rangers as this club is not notable and never going to have an article
    • Done.
  • "returning to the Sneinton district after a season away" - why? Where did they play the previous season?
    • Its unclear in my source. I suppose its connected to general disruption after Carlton dissolved because of the war, but I can't say for sure.
  • "being noted as "much-improved"" - by whom?
    • Clarified.
  • "Eager "to progress beyond the confines of local parks football"" - again, who is this is a quote from?
    • The NPL. Easier just to change into straight prose.
  • "joined the Central Midlands Football League at the twelfth tier of the league system" - the CML Premier Division was level 11 back in 1995, not 12
    • Help me understand this, please. At which point did Carlton's tier change without promotion or relegation?
      • With the creation of the Conference North in 2004. Prior to that, the divisions below the Football League went Conference > NPL Premier > NPL 1 > NCEL Premier > NCEL 1 > CML Supreme > CML Premier, so in 1995 the CML Premier (the level at which Carlton entered) was level 11. Similarly in 2001 when they were in the CML Supreme, that was at level 10 as per the above. So, when the Conference North was formed in 2004, the NCEL Div One shifted down from level 9 to 10, so by staying in the same division Carlton went down a tier. Hope that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notwithstanding a "reasonable" first season" - reasonable according to whom
    • Removed quote marks.
  • ""In a desperate quandary"," - again, who is this quote from?
    • NPL again. Bit journalistic so replaced.
  • "Sneinton's third-place finish in the eleventh tier in 2000–01" - tenth tier at that point
    • See other CML comment.
  • "if not for "ground grading issues" negating this opportunity." - ground grading issues is a perfectly standard term, so no reason to present it as a quote
    • Wasn't aware of this before. Removed.
  • "guarantee a valid promotion should it be achieved" - really weird wording. Maybe "make the team eligible for promotion if they finished in an appropriate league position"
    • Done.
  • "establishing a club record in the FA Vase by entering its third round" => "establishing a club record in the FA Vase by reaching its third round" as otherwise it sounds like they just went straight in at the third round
    • Done.
  • "playoff semi-final, losing 5–2 to Stocksbridge Park Steels" => "playoff semi-final, Carlton losing 5–2 to Stocksbridge Park Steels"
    • Done.
  • "Finishing ninth in 2009–10, Brookbanks" - it wasn't Brookbanks who finished ninth
    • Done.
  • Refs after "red and white mix for 2021–22" in wrong order
    • Done.
  • Same after "before its collapse in 2011, Gedling Town"
    • Done.
  • "Located on the Colwick Lawn Estate [...] he led" - it wasn't the ground that led this
    • Done.
  • "becoming the home of Parliament Street Methodists" - again, this non-notable team is never going to have an article so remove redlink
    • Done.
  • Refs after "requiring a relocation of the pitch within the premises" again in wrong order
    • Done.
  • "30 carparking spaces" - I don't think "carparking" is a single word
    • Done.
  • I can't see any reason to have a References heading and then a Footnotes subheading right after it when there are no other sub-sections in that section
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for your thoroughness, @ChrisTheDude: once the CML tier-position thing is cleared up I should have addressed everything. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any improvements I can make to persuade you to support, ChrisTheDude? Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I forgot all about this. I don't have time to do a proper re-review tonight but will try to do so tomorrow....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (on 1a) Comments from BigDom edit

Sorry, but I felt I had to be honest. It's good to see a substantial article about a smaller club, but I think there are quite a few prose issues and it isn't at the required "professional standard" yet. Some of the word choices strike me as a bit strange (that's not necessarily a problem, everyone has their own style), but some bits I found a little confusing and had to read two or three times before I could work out what was meant. Here are a few things I've picked out (not exhaustive):

  • "The Football Association (FA)" - the acronym "FA" is already used a sentence earlier. It only appears in competition names throughout the article anyway, so not convinced it is needed.
    • Deleted.
  • "the club became frustrated" - the players, the board, the supporters?
    • Prose changed.
  • "In 1948, the team vacated to a pitch at Colwick Wood Park, returning to the Sneinton district after a season away." - I see this sentence has been mentioned above but reading the article as a newcomer it's not clear at all what is meant. Is it trying to say that the team had played elsewhere for a season (presumably 1947–48 and if so, where was it?), or that Colwick Wood Park is somewhere outside Sneinton (if so, where is it?)?
    • The former. The problem is, my source doesn't say. We're talking about a local parks team in the late 1940s; quoting directly: "The Sneinton F.C. have secured new playing headquarters for the coming season. A return, after one season's absence, being made to the district of the club's origin ...". I wish I had more for you. I've changed the existing prose, anyhow.
  • "finishing seventh in 1949–50 but with steady finances." - why "but"? Would a team finishing 7th not expect to have "steady" finances?
    • Changed.
  • "Avoiding relegation,[30] the club again transferred leagues ahead of 1969–70 to rejoin the Notts Alliance in its Division Two, being noted as "much-improved" by the Nottingham Football Post in 1976–77." - did avoiding relegation have anything to do with transferring leagues? Also, what happened in the years leading up to the improvement?
    • I'm not sure on the first point, largely since the sources aren't very helpful. However, on the second, I've uncovered that Sneinton's first season in the division was a stinker. This could explain the "improvement" comment.
  • "Sneinton eventually won the 1984–85 campaign" - "eventually" sounds like it took them a long time to win that particular season
    • Removed.
  • "satisfied both activities" => "met the needs of both"
    • Changed.
  • "leading to the appointment of a deputation in protest." - presumably it was the club protesting, not the Improvement Committee? Also, it reads as if "deputation in protest" is a single noun phrase.
    • Correct. Changed.
  • "contesting a season remotely" sounds rather odd - I would change this whole sentence to be honest. How about: After reforming in 1947, the club relocated to one of two public pitches at Colwick Wood Park in 1948, having played its matches in the intervening year at an alternative venue."?
    • Changed.
  • "In the early 1990s, the team moved to their current location on Stoke Lane in Gedling, dovetailing with Sneinton's competitive ambition to progress through the English league system." - dovetailing?
    • Was probably better to remove the entire third clause of that sentence, to be honest.
  • "That said" - not really encyclopedic tone.
    • Changed.
  • Source issue: what makes CBJStar a reliable source? It seems to be a student newspaper.
    • It is. My only defence would be that, apparently, it was a story too insignificant for the bigger local papers; I see no reason or opportunity for the writer, even if they're a student, to get the presence of a youth academy suite wrong.

I really wanted to support this so would be happy to come back and reconsider once some work has been done on the prose. Good luck! BigDom (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for checking this over, @BigDom: doing an article like this is a poison chalice in some respects. The need is clearly there for better articles on smaller clubs, but finding information is often a flipping nightmare! Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand it can be tough to get the information when it's an obscure topic like this. Thanks for addressing the points above, I still think the article needs a thorough copy-edit to meet 1a though as well as some specific concerns:
      • "Mixed fortunes followed as key players Arthur Clamp and Andrew Mosley joined Notts County, despite new tram infrastructure in the area promising improved attendance." is a bit of a non-sequitur to me. What's the connection between the players leaving and the trams arriving? Did the players leaving affect performances on the pitch? Did the improved tram infrastructure have any effect on attendances?
        • I see what you mean. My sources are from when these events were unfolding, so it's hard to discern their actual impact beyond the immediate outlook for the club during the 1907–08 season. Any suggestions on rewording? I'm a bit stuck.
      • "playing form suffered [...], losing several players" - the playing form didn't lose several players
        • Fixed.
      • "the club reformed on 29 April 1919" - there is no mention of the club disbanding so it's confusing to read that it reformed.
        • Fixed.
      • "finishing seventh in 1949–50 and with steady finances.[27] By 1965–66" - any information about the intervening 15 years? That paragraph in general is very sparse, covering around 45 years in under 200 words.
        • Added a fair bit after some serious trawling. You'll no doubt want to look at the prose.
      • "Notwithstanding a reasonable first season" - Chris mentioned this above too. Removing the quotes doesn't make it not an opinion, so again, reasonable according to whom?
        • The NPL; I was trying to avoid mentioning it since Carlton hadn't been promoted to that tier yet. I could just delete that bit? Doesn't tell us terribly much anyway.
      • "Runners-up and playoff semi-finalists in the division's 2011–12 contest,[36] League form dipped in the following seasons, finishing twelfth, tenth and eighteenth respectively." - I don't think this sentence is grammatical at all, there's no subject.
        • Fixed.
      • "Combined with poor tournament results in 2014–15 [...] McJannet resigned." - McJannet wasn't combined with poor results
        • Fixed.
      • "narrowly missing out on playoffs" - "[...] on the playoffs"
        • Fixed.
      • Club identity - this section is incomplete, there's no details about the club colours until "recent"ly (when?). When was the club crest introduced and has the club used any others before this one?
        • I'll need a day or two to search the Wayback Machine on this point and the next. A very tricky section!
      • Green's mill - nice, but where is the link between it and the club? (the "About Green's windmill" page linked doesn't mention the club as far as I can see)
      • Maybe worth giving inflation figures (e.g. how much is £300 in 1905 worth today)
        • Fixed.
      • "Conversely, 1935 saw the addition of another pitch" - why "conversely"? It doesn't disagree with the previous sentence.
        • Fixed.
          • Better, but note that MOS:NUMNOTES says to avoid starting a sentence with figures.
      • Most of the article is written about the club in the third-person singular but a couple of times it drifts to third-person plural, e.g. in the lead "Carlton have played their home games" and in the Grounds section "moved to their current location". There may be others I missed.
        • Good spot. The team/club distinction was brought up by "Eem dik doun in toene" above. I've tried to go "it/its" for club and "they/their" for team. What do you reckon?
      • Refs: #35 - what makes Non-League Football Matters a reliable source (it might be, I haven't come across it before but I haven't written much about non-league). #47 is a fan blog, which I don't think would count as reliable.
        • The league tables on it follow pretty seamlessly from those found on the British Newspaper Archive. Also, I'd say its self-identification as an "independent football history information site" is about equivalent to the status of the Football Club History Database. Fan blog deleted and rival team replaced.
    • Hope these are useful. BigDom (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks again, @BigDom: quite a lot to be getting on with here but I hope we're getting closer. I'll do some more digging on the "club identity" section before reporting back. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, @BigDom: I've done my best with the "club identity" section after some further research. Alas, I still can't prove the Green's Mill connection in writing (despite, annoyingly, knowing it to be true in real life). Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Curlymanjaro: You've put some great effort into improving the article, really impressive. I've struck my explicit opposition although I can't quite bring myself to support. I'm still not convinced the prose is quite of a "professional standard" per WP:FA?#1a and it still feels a little incomplete (for example, no information about club colours/kits before 2003) for #1b. I understand though that this may just be the nature of writing about such an obscure topic and am not sure whether it could ever be overcome. Good work overall, though! BigDom (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - as this nomination has been open for well over a month and is not close to a consensus to promote, it will have to be archived in a couple days unless significant movement towards a consensus to promote occurs. Hog Farm Talk 04:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: of the three reviewers, we've got two supporting and one having reversed their opposition. How many more until you can pass? Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A minimum of three supports is expected, although the coordinators have the ability to consider more than three needed. Formal source and image reviews are also required. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Hog Farm: I'm hopefully close to getting the image review passed. I believe I've satisfied every reviewer's specific qualms; I suppose it's just a case waiting for another user if three really is the bare minimum. Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I'm looking at closing this but have some reservations about the way the promotion in 2006-07 is worded in the second para of the lead. Might sleep on it and revisit tomorrow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments from ChrisTheDude edit

  • I've made a few tweaks myself but the following could still do with looking oat.....
  • "a near-undefeated run lasting close to three months" - how can you have a "near-undefeated run"? Surely a run is either undefeated or it isn't..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild - I supported about three weeks ago. I seem to have put it in a rather non-intuitive place TBF so apologies for that........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - spotted it. Thanks CTD. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version. One minor inconsistency:

  • You use publisher= in almost all your web citations; the omission is [53].
    • Fixed.

Formatting looks good. One link to look at:

  • The Pitchfinder archive link, [67], is not coming up for me.
    • Fixed (hopefully).

One reliability question:

  • [52] is a Pitchero site; as far as I can tell Pitchero is not inherently unreliable, but I can't tell if the page you're citing is written by a Pitchero writer or if this is a platform that Carlton Town fans use to write their own content, or something in between. If the writer is a Pitchero employee this is fine; is there evidence of that?
    • Switched to a better source.

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • Is the Notts Alliance League worth a redlink? How about the Notts Spartan League? The Notts Amateur League? The Nottingham Football Post?
  • Aren't the sentences starting "In May 1905..." and "The team enjoyed success..." out of order? The success was achieved over the 1904-1905 season, wasn't it?
  • "Sneinton regained the League championship in 1907–08...": we haven't said they didn't win in 1906-07, so I think this would be better as "Sneinton won the League championship again in 1907–08...".
  • "reaching the first round of the Notts Alliance Cup and the third round of the FA Amateur Cup, losing to Oxford City": this makes it sound as though Oxford eliminated them from both competitions. Assuming that's not the case, I suggest making this "reaching the first round of the Notts Alliance Cup and losing to Oxford City in the third round of the FA Amateur Cup".
  • "Conversely, the 1922–23 season returned mediocre form and poor finances, a trend repeated in subsequent years, sparing the team's joint-holding of the 1925–26 Notts Alliance Cup": at this point the article is listing significant seasons, not every season; what makes the 1922-23 season notable enough to mention? Is it the start of the downward trend? What happened during the 1921-22 season? And I don't think you can say the trend repeated; a trend starts and continues or stops; "repeated" implies another later trend. What does "poor finances" mean?
    • I'm hesitant to delete this sentence outright as I'd rather avoid creating a decade-long hole in the article; I've switched some words around nevertheless.
  • When the merged with Trent Rangers, what was the merged club's name?
    • Sorry, the prose might be a little confusing here. The old Sneinton club reformed and essentially absorbed Trent Rangers, whose name ceased to exist. I've changed the wording a little, but let me know if it's still unclear.
  • "In 1948, the team vacated to a pitch at Colwick Wood Park": we haven't said where they played the previous season (Trent Rangers's ground?) so we can't say "vacated".
  • "During the 1951–52 campaign, Sneinton's lack of teamwork came under scrutiny from the Nottingham Football Post": I can't see the source, but it looks like this is a single article, whereas our article text makes it sounds like the criticism was kept up throughout the season. What does the source actually say?
    • "Bakersfield easily accounted for Sneinton who appear to be too individualistic".
  • "The club had achieved promotion to Division Two by 1956–57": so we don't know exactly when the promotion happened? Are there offline sources that cover this sort of thing?
    • Alas, I looked deep into the British Newspaper Archive for a precise season but that was the best I could do.
  • "Bill Stokeld, appointed former players Tommy Brookbanks and Neil Cooper into management": business management? Team co-managers?
  • I would move the content of note [a] into the body; it's necessary detail to explain the name change.

I'm going to pause there. I think the prose is not as good as it needs to be. Normally I'd oppose on prose, but I've done a copyedit of rather more substance than I would normally do at FAC; let me know if you think the changes are OK. If so I'll make another copyediting pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Mike Christie: I understand your concerns. Apart from specific difficulties (detailed above), I've implemented all of your suggestions. Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The changes are definitely improvements. I'll make another pass through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Still thinking about "During the 1951–52 campaign, Sneinton's lack of teamwork came under scrutiny from the Nottingham Football Post". You say the supporting cite is "Bakersfield easily accounted for Sneinton who appear to be too individualistic". That sounds like it applies to a single game. If so, I'd make this something like "After a loss to Bakersfield in the 1951-52 campaign, the Nottingham Football Post commented that the team "appeared to be too individualistic".
    • Implemented.
  • "expiring after the 2006–07 season, Carlton's first logo comprised a blue and white football on which black text with a yellow shadow, reading "Carlton Town FC", was wrapped diagonally": what exactly happened with the logo? They decided they didn't like it? Or are we just deducing it was abandoning because it's no longer on the kit or on club publications?
Fair comment. Now reflected. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though the club sought away matches as early as October 1904, May 1905 saw Sneinton reside at the Sneinton Cricket Club and Ground on Colwick Road": This doesn't make it clear exactly what happened, though I'm aware that may be because you're relying on fragmentary sources. Is May 1905 just the date of their first home match? Or is there other evidence that that's when they gained use of the ground?
    • May 1905 is when they gained use of the ground. Made this clear now.

That's it for a second pass. I did more copyediting; let me know if anything looks wrong as a result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through again:

  • "In 1957–58, the team's goal-scoring record led to an undefeated run lasting almost three months." This is a bit vaguely phrased. I can't see the source, but would it support "In 1957–58, the team's prolific goal-scoring led to an undefeated run lasting almost three months."? That would be more direct.
  • "Division reorganised and renamed; reprieved from relegation due to ground grading issues at A.F.C. Mansfield" is only in the table: might be worth mentioning this in the body of the article.

This is getting close now; just these two points this time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Suggestions adopted. Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 24 July 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/Carlton_Town_F.C./archive1&oldid=1101034410"