Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F.C. United of Manchester/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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2016 [1].

F.C. United of Manchester edit

Nominator(s): odder (talk), Delusion23 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a supporter-owned, semi-professional, non-league football club based in Manchester, England. Founded in 2005 by Manchester United fans, F.C. United currently play somewhat entertaining football at level six of the English football pyramid. Since their foundation, F.C. United have been the subject of many a newspaper articles, television programmes and a couple of books and documentaries, and are one of the most known non-league clubs in England.

I'm moving forward with this nomination hoping to get the article promoted to FA status in time for the 11th anniversary of the club's first ever match on 16 July. After a considerable amount of work I put into the article over the last few months, I feel it meets all FA criteria, and I look forward to listening to your suggestions and comments. Thanks, everyone. odder (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber edit

I read this at peer review and was happy with alot of it. More comments: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015, ready for the 2015–16 season. - makes it sound like the 2015–16 season hasn't happened yet. Might be better as "United's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015 and was used for the 2015–16 season"
Sentence 2 and 3 in the Formation section both begin with, "Although.."

Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Cas, I've now reworded that paragraph to avoid this unfortunate repetition. I also fixed the sentence on the opening of the ground, so both issues should now be fixed. odder (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro edit

Comment: I hope to give this a full review, but a quick glance through at the sourcing gave me a few concerns. Here are a few sourcing questions, but this isn't an exhaustive list and there could be a few other issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The book by Robert Brady appears to be self published according to Google. What makes it reliable?
    • How do you know it's a self-published book? I own a copy, and I can't tell if it's been self-published or not. The book—one of only three books written specifically about F.C. United—is reliable because it was written by a member of the club's steering group (or, "steering committee", as some call it), which was the group that worked on actually creating the club, including its registration with the Football Association, hiring the manager, signing players—everything that needed to be done to get the club off the ground before the inauguaral members' meeting on 5 July 2005. When it comes to facts about F.C. United's beginnings, and in particular the events of May 2005, it doesn't come more direct than that. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Says on Google Books here that he was the author and publisher. However, in the circumstances, I think this would be fine to use. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have the Sunday Mirror as a source, which I think is questionable as a RS (see WP:PUS)
    • This is a tough one, as the article was published in February 2005, and as far as I am aware is the only printed source that covered the idea suggesting the formation of F.C. United. The idea was originally proposed in an article published in Red Issue, a Manchester United fanzine, and was then subsequently reported on in that Sunday Mirror piece, which I accessed through the news database Newsbank at a library. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I really think we could do with a better source though. The Sunday Mirror is frowned upon. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find any other source confirming the name of the author of that original Red Issue piece, so I ended up removing it, and referenced the date of that article and the fact that the idea was originally floated during the attempted Murdoch takeover to an article published in the journal Soccer & Society. odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes "The Set Pieces" a reliable website?
    • They are an award-winning football blog (1 and 2 although the website itself doesn't look much like a blog). They're also part of the Guardian Sport Network and are regularly featured on the Guardian's website, but if that's not enough then I guess I'll see if I can replace this reference with something else. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are a little questionable unless by a recognised authority, I believe. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above; I couldn't find any sources confirming the identity of that Red Issue writer, so I removed it and used a journal article instead. odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 57 of the 140 sources are to fc-utd.co.uk, the club's own website. This seems a very high proportion to me, and we should not be using the subject of the article to provide so much information on itself
    • Some of these references are used to provide the score, date or venue of particular matches; I'll try to replace them with outside sources, but I'm afraid it's probably mostly going to be the Manchester Evening News. The article is already using MEN materials 19 times at this moment, so I'm not sure if this isn't going to be a problem. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think MEN would be better for at least some of these; that would be better than using the club's own site. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got that number down to 39 (out of 136) by replacing news pieces (updates) from F.C. United's website to articles published in the MEN; I tried to link to on-line versions where available, but some of those articles apparently never made it to the MEN's website, in which case I used the news database Newsbank which I can access as a reader at the Manchester City Council Libraries. odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 25 seems to go to an error page; and what makes North West Counties Football League reliable?
    • You might need to try again, as that website appears to be having temporary issues. It certainly works for me. And as what makes the North West Counties Football League reliable, well… it's the North West Counties Football League, the organisation that runs the league that F.C. United were first accepted into, all the way back in 2005-06. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Mancunian Matters, and what makes it reliable?
    • It's a local on-line newspaper (news website) co-published by News Associates (Manchester branch), which apparently is the second-best sports journalism training centre in the whole of the United Kingdom (never knew that). odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a lot of local press coverage, which is fine, and a few BBC items. Is there nothing in the sporting/football press about the club that could be included Sarastro1 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As F.C. United are a semi-professional, non-league club, there is a very limited fotballing/sports coverage available apart from local papers, and in particular apart from the Manchester Evening News, Manchester's most popular daily paper. The article does include a few references to FourFourTwo, one each from ESPN, the Non-League Football Paper, and a few references to general British press such as the Daily Telegraph, the Independent, and the Guardian (which due to its past has a particular interest in all things Mancunian).
In any case, @Sarastro1, thank you so much for such a detailed review of the sources used. It's super helpful, and I will try to fix the issues that you pointed out. Due to work and other Wikimedia commitments this is likely to take some time, though; I expect to be able to work on this tomorrow (Tuesday) evening as well as Wednesday, and will update you once I'm done. Please do feel free to mention other issues that you find, and thanks again for your work on this, really appreciate the feedback. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: I think I've now fixed all the outstanding issues; I also used this opportunity to replace some other low-quality sources, so referencing should be a bit better now. Are there any other problems that you can see? Thanks, odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I think this looks in reasonable shape overall, but could stand a little tightening. A few points from the lead to begin with. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "United entered the North West Counties Football League Division Two in their inaugural season. They achieved three consecutive promotions in the first three years of their existence and were promoted for a fourth time to compete in the National League North for the 2015–16 season": Is it worth saying what tier they begun at, to give some contrast?
This is mentioned in #North West Counties years (2005–07). odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In cup competitions, F.C. United reached the second round of the FA Cup during the 2010–11 season and the first round during the 2015–16 season. They reached the fourth round of the FA Trophy during the 2014–15 season and the third round of the FA Vase during the 2006–07 season.": I know what we are trying to do here, but it's a little bit of a list as it stands. We could either limit this to mentioning their best results in the cups, or make more of their achievements. For example, it is not immediately obvious to a non-UK football person that reaching the first round of a competition is actually an achievement, and involves winning games. I think I prefer the first option.
I think you're right; I guess I'll remove the 2006-07 FA Vase and the FA Cup 2015-16 results, as reaching both FA Cup second round and FA Trophy fourth round are bigger achievements than that. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is done. odder (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The club shared Gigg Lane with Bury until 2014 and in the 2014–15 season Bower Fold and the Tameside Stadium with Stalybridge Celtic and Curzon Ashton respectively. F.C. United's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015.": Again, we are getting list-y here; perhaps cut to "After initially sharing grounds with other clubs, F.C. United opened their own ground..." etc.
Nice catch. I'll try to shorten this a bit. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has been addressed in the meantime. odder (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is a little light. Rather than list grounds and Cup results, we need a brief summary of each of the main sections in the main body. I would imagine Supporters, Organisation and Criticism (even if there is no longer a criticism section!) need a little more. WP:LEAD says somewhere that we need a summary of all the main content in the lead.
    • This has been already mentioned during the article's peer review, and while I agree that a short summary of the Supporters and Organisation sections might be necessary—and I'll happily do that—I object to the inclusion of Criticism in the lead. I have read, re-read and then read again all featured English football club articles, and none of them mention any criticism in their respective leads. F.C. United's article is already unique in even mentioning the criticism (given the circumstances around the club's formation I guess it's fair play), however I think that including this in the lead would be pushing it a bit too far. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't been done. I added a short summary of the Supporters and Organisation sections—one sentence each—to the lead but I haven't summarised the Criticism section and I'm not planning on doing so for the reasons outlined above. odder (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the prose could stand a little tightening in places in the main body. I'll take a look, and if you have no objections I'll copy-edit directly. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: No objections whatsoever, and thank you for the edits you've already made. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History:

  • "Although the fans had various reasons for their dissatisfaction": Can we list at least a couple of these?
    • There exists a whole variety of sources mentioning those—particularly the early Manchester Evening News articles about F.C. United, mostly from May-August 2005 and I could certainly cite them, however see below for my reasoning as to why I haven't done that yet. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just doing a quick spot check of ref 3 and 4 gave two references to AFC Wimbledon. Do we need to mention this as some sort of inspiration/precedent?
    • AFC Wimbledon officials provided F.C United's steering committee with a lot of help in the early days, and Wimbledon's chairman was actually present at the Apollo Theatre; this is mentioned in a lot of sources, including Brady's book. I never covered this in the article as it felt to me as being too small a detail as compared to the bigger picture, but including this is certainly doable. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we are missing a little detail about the public meeting; the Guardian says that "At those meetings, £100,000 was pledged and a name selected by founder members"
    • I think there is a bit of a confusion here. The name that this passage refers to is "F.C. United"; it was originally suggested in that breakthourgh Red Issue piece, and then refused by the FA for being too ambigous. The name "F.C. United of Manchester" was selected by people who have pledged money to the club—as this was even before the club's inaugural member's meeting which only happened on 5 July—through the internet and the post rather than during the two public meetings at the Central Hall and at the Apollo Theatre. The £100,000 that is being referred to also was pledged in a variety of ways, including through the post, the internet, over the phone, etc., and not just during the meetings. But overall, I think this is too detailed to be included in this article per WP:DETAIL. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and "Newton Heath United"": I think this name at least warrants more explanation.
  • Christopher Porter (ref 12) appears to be a thesis; what makes it a RS?
    • According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP PhD theses can be used if they're cited in literature, as Porter's thesis has been (Peter Kennedy, David Kennedy, "Football in Neo-Liberal Times: A Marxist Perspective on the European Football Industry", ISBN 9781317576266; Simon Gwyn Roberts, "Sport, Media and Regional Identity", ISBN 9781443886666).
  • "During F.C. United's formation, the owners of Leigh RMI offered to merge the two clubs, but United refused the offer as they believed that taking over an existing club would be hypocritical, given the manner in which F.C. United were formed.": This does not quite match the source, which says the clubs considered merging but decided against it. Also, the hypocritical suggestion came from the Chairman of the Leigh RMI supporter's club.
    • As far as I am aware, the offer was rejected by F.C. United, however I agree that this isn't what the source say and I will reword it. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is now done. odder (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead, F.C. United's first game was a friendly match against Leigh RMI": Instead does not quite work here. Instead of what? Merging? But that's not what the source says in ref 18; that says it was more of a thank you for Leigh's support and to help that club's finances.
    • I agree; it doesn't. I'll reword this. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note that this has now been taken care of. odder (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're a bit light overall on the formation of the club. It goes from an idea by fans, to an idea in a fanzine, to a fully formed club very, very quickly. Who were the guiding figures? Who organised the meetings? Who sat down and said, "We're going to do this!"? Where did the money come from? I just think we need more detail here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit torn about this. During the recent peer review, I have considerably shortened the history section (covering the actual football history of the club) and expanded the formation sub-section; I think the article is quite balanced as is now. I could certainly provide some of the information that you mention—such as names of the steering committee, name of the Club's first secretary; but then not all of them as there is a very limited number of reliable sources covering the quite chaotic formation of the club—however I'm worried that it would lead to the formation section outgrowing the rest of the article. Same for the inclusion of Wimbledon's help, the name Newton Heath United, and others. Is this detail necessary and proper in this kind of general article? For instance, Manchester United F.C., Liverpool F.C., Arsenal F.C. and Aston Villa F.C., all curent FAs about English football clubs, provide only one sentence about the actual formation of their clubs, and go into detail in their respective history articles, which seems to be the standard approach. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My view, for what it's worth, is that the article is currently too sparse. Probably the most noteworthy aspect to the club so far has been their formation and the reasons for it. This requires more I think. As for concerns about the formation section growing too large, it is not at the moment. It's about a third of the history section, and I think it could be longer. Comparing FC United of Manchester to Manchester, Liverpool or Arsenal is hardly appropriate as those clubs have a much longer history and focusing on their formation would be a little undue. If there was ever a fear that the article was growing too long, the formation section could be spun out into its own article. Perhaps the best comparable article would be AFC Wimbledon, which has a very tight, very focused formation section (and a rather well-written one at that) but also an article (Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes) which covers the whole story, including formation of the new club. I don't think the Glazer ownership article covers the formation of FC United of Manchester much at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I just found this. I don't think we use it at the moment, but there's a lot of early detail. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. The article actually does not introduce any new information that isn't already covered in the article, however it does provide a lot of detail on the sums and organisations that provided funding for Broadhurst Park, so I have now added that piece as a reference there. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2005-07:

  • Were they promoted as Champions in their first season? I can't quite check the reference as the webarchive link simply goes to a main page for the MEN.
    • I'm not sure why you would click on the archive link as the link to the actual article is live; in any case, both the original article and the archive work for me without any problems. odder (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were promoted to the Northern Premier League Division One North after beating Ramsbottom United.": As written, this looks like they won one game and were promoted.
    • This isn't what the sentence says; the full sentence says after a successful season (…) F.C. United were promoted (…) after beating Ramsbottom; I think the meaning of the sentence is quite clear. odder (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They confirmed their promotion with a 7–1 win over Atherton Laburnum Rovers on 18 April 2007,": Hang on, we just said they were promoted after beating Ramsbottom...
    • I've now reworded this to say "they secured their second successive league title with a 7–1 win…". odder (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did they not play in the FA Cup until 07-08? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indopug edit

Comment per WP:NPOV, sections such as "Criticism" tend to act as POV dumps and content forks. I think this article doesn't need such a section at all and its contents can be easily moved elsewhere. For eg, the Fergie critique to Formation, and the stuff about the club allegedly betraying its principles to Organisation (where said principles are laid out) and Supporters as appropriate.—indopug (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@indopug: Thanks for the comment. Can you explain exactly what you have in mind when saying "POV dumps" and "content forks"? WP:NPOV#Article structure says that no rules prohibit particular article structures as long as the overall presentation is broadly neutral, and I think both the article as a whole as well as the Criticism section specifically are indeed broadly neutral. I'm also a little bit confused about your saying that this article doesn't need such a section at all. I only expanded this section about two weeks ago after it was suggested during the article's third peer review that I do so, and I feel like I'm caught between a rock and a hard place here… odder (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find indopug to be generally correct on these things. By POV dump, he means any time someone passes a comment in the real world, someone slaps it in the criticism section. And I think I agree that the content in the criticism section could be split. It certainly needs to be kept, but perhaps not in its own section. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination has not earned any support for promotion after more than a month. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2016 (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/F.C._United_of_Manchester/archive1&oldid=1079645968"