Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry/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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry edit

Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): BillyBatty (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about one of the most notorious football rivalries in world football, Millwall and West Ham United. It was quite a mess and suffered neutrality problems, from a lot of recentism and missing results. It has just received good article status, and spans over 100 years of history between the clubs. It's stable. It contains information that exists nowhere else online, that I and another user have sourced ourselves from reputable books. BillyBatty (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was first contested in an FA Cup game in 1899 between Millwall Athletic and Thames Ironworks (the club reformed as West Ham United in 1900.) - 2nd sentence of lead - I'd say the two teams first met but did the rivalry commence from the same date?
Made that clearer. BillyBatty (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::I think the In popular culture section is a bit listy as is - any other comments on all depictions as a whole or on any particular one would be good to beef up section a bit.

Removed the list completely, think it flows and looks better as a paragraph. Added a couple of refs to a police mistake, which relates to the article and the subsection. BillyBatty (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better but still a bit listy to read. If you could sprinkle a couple of sentences with some info - I dunno, most widely praised for realism/popular/unpopular etc. and anything to increase the size of the literature bit....
What do you think of the quote I added? I would have liked to put it in history of the rivalry section, but it's quite cluttered with photos. BillyBatty (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the quote I like. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
between 1916–2014 - err, "between 1916 and 2014" or something else with a dash...
Alot of the history is about fixtures but doesn't really convey to the reader the depth of the rivalry. Any more colourful anecdotes that could be inserted into the History of the rivalry section would help.
A lot of the more colourful hooligan section was in history of the rivalry, but I separated out the football from the violence. Should I mix a little? BillyBatty (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might read a little better if you do actually. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added to three different eras in the history section, the 1906 fighting quote is especially good for establishing the rivalry between fans early on. Added the 1972 murder after the testimonial game. Also added a playful element, the 2011 plane flyover of Millwall fans celebrating West Ham's relegation. BillyBatty (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
between 1915–19, between 1919–30 & Between 1939–46 in wars section need rejigging.
A record attendance for the fixture. - has no verb - maybe attach to previous sentence.
Think those read a little better.BillyBatty (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I meant I wouldn't say between 1915–19 - I'd say between 1915 and 1919 or over/during 1915–19....but the prose does look better otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Fixed that. So used to writing it the shorthand, footbally way. BillyBatty (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Upton Park riot: 2009–present section - the end of para 1 says, "....but concluded that the allegations against Millwall had not been proved" - however the bginning of the section does not mention what indeed the allegations were...
Done.BillyBatty (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the article is within striking distance overall, having read thru the prose once. I think the prose can be tightened a little (though I need to read again to see fixes) and will alert some other reviewers as this one has been slow in getting attention. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I can't see any other prose deal-breakers as such so am leaning support, though suspect some more bits and pieces to fix will turn up. It is engaging to read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning oppose: This is generally a really good article, and quite well done for a tricky topic. And I think it will eventually make a good, rather different, FA. But I'm not quite sure it's there yet. There are fussy little prose points which could be sorted, and I think it needs tightening generally, as Casliber suggests above. I wonder was this rushed a little? It had a PR with no comments, then a GAN which it passed after quite a lot of work, and then it was nominated here four days later. That does not quite suggest FA-ready to me. I've read the first few sections, and while it is enjoyable I've found quite a few points which we probably shouldn't have at this stage. I'm leaning oppose, but that isn't set in stone. However, if these points are addressed and there are similar ones in the rest of the article, I think I would have to regretfully oppose. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”They were rivals for the same business…”: Having read in the main body about the formation of the teams, I’m not sure that this sentence really captures the idea that the players and supporters were competing for work. Maybe rephrase?
  • ”and despite no longer being East London rivals, the derbies retained their passion and both sets of supporters still consider the other club as their main rival”: Redundancy in the prose. Maybe “and although no longer East London rivals, the derbies retained their passion; both sets of supporters still consider the other club their main rival”
  • ”They were rivals for the same business which intensified games between the teams. In 1910 Millwall moved south of the River Thames and despite no longer being East London rivals, the derbies retained their passion and both sets of supporters still consider the other club as their main rival”: Three “rivals” in two sentences.
  • Founding section: three consecutive sentences begin with “the”, which is not ideal.
  • ”Goals from Hugh Goldie and Bert Banks saw Millwall Athletic beat their rivals away 2–1 at the Memorial Grounds”: I’m afraid I really hate the use of “saw” like this, and particularly in sports articles, as it reads to me like journalese. Any chance of a slight rephrase?
  • ”The second competitive meeting was a Southern League match that spanned two centuries.”: While this may make a cute DYK fact, I’m not sure that it is necessary to note this.
Tackled those first five, the sixth about spanning two centuries was unusual. Abandoned games are usually wiped from the records, as per five other contests between the teams. This one wasn't and the rest of the game being played the next century is quite an anomaly. BillyBatty (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the two centuries point. Incidentally, you changed one of the words to "derby". Watch out for North American readers who have no idea what this is. Maybe link it to Local derby? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to the more specific London derbies. BillyBatty (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we using singular or plural for the clubs? We have “Millwall Rovers Football Club was formed…” but “Thames Ironworks were disbanded…”. Some consistency is needed, and I’d be inclined to go for UK usage here.
  • ”disbanded in June 1900 due to disputes over the running of the club”: The pedant in me thinks this should be “owing to”.
  • ”The following month the club was renamed West Ham United.”: How can it be renamed if it’s just been disbanded?
Reformed, relaunched or resurrected? Went with the middle one. BillyBatty (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The two sides met a record seven times in each of these seasons”: I don’t like sporting short-hand like “a record seven times”. What record? For a season? For these clubs? For all clubs?
  • ”Millwall and West Ham were competing in the Southern League”: Why do we need “were competing”? I think “competed” is less clunky.
  • ”During this period, Millwall went 12 games unbeaten”: More sports speak. Why not the plain “were unbeaten in 12 consecutive games”?
  • ”including a record 7–1 win in a Southern Professional Charity Cup”: Record again. What record? Highest scoring game? Most goals by one team? Biggest victory? Record for all matches or just these ones?
  • ”with four goals being scored by B. Hulse at the Memorial Grounds.”: A bit convoluted. Why not “and B Hulse scored four goals at the Memorial Ground”?
  • ”They ran out 3–0 winners”: Straight out of a sports-report and not really appropriate for an encyclopaedia.
  • ”a particularly ferocious encounter saw one Millwall player”: And I think this is sports journalese too.
  • General point: lots of sentences seem to begin with “the” or “they”. A little more variety would be good. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a time limit between when to do PR, GA and FA nominations? This is my first try for a FA. This wasn't rushed at all. I've been slowly working on this wiki since 2010. It just needs a thorough copyedit of somebody with more expertise in encyclopaedic prose than me. All the content and stats is well-sourced, reliable. This is the most complete online source for this topic. I was hoping the fine toothcomb of a FA nom would bring somebody forward who would help out with this, but alas, not. I appreciate your input. BillyBatty (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BillyBatty, was planning to have more of a look soon. I can copyedit and so can the other two editors I alerted to this page. Have a go at fixing the above and I will take another read-through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be brilliant, Casliber. Cheers! BillyBatty (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no time limit, and don't give up quite yet. It's not far off, and I'm sure that we can polish the prose between us. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed other issues you pointed out and tried to pre-empt a few! BillyBatty (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've struck everything that has been addressed, and I think we are getting there now, so I've struck the "leaning oppose". I won't comment any more right now as I see there is some copy-editing going on. I'll look back in a day or two. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • The section title "During the wars: 1915–45" is a little misleading, as it does not only talk about the wartime games. Maybe a different title is needed; I'd suggest "Between the wars" but I don't think that would work either.
  • I agree the new title isn't perfect. Let me think. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the First World War, the Football League was reintroduced": Reintroduced where? I think this needs a better wording.
  • "Millwall joined the season after in the Football League expansion of the Third Division in 1920–21": And this is rather confusing. They joined what? The last sentence talks of the second division, which makes this ambiguous. And do we mean "when the Football League expanded the Third Division"?
  • "They met for the first time in the Football League in the 1932–33 season": What happened that season which made them meet? I'm assuming promotion or relegation, but for who? This should be made explicit; don't make the reader do the work.
  • Record attendance: Do we need an "as of 2014" here, per WP:DATED?
  • "West Ham remained a Second Division club, being promoted into the First Division": These two statements can't both be true.
  • "The two sides went a period of nineteen years without playing each other": Journalese. Maybe better as "For nineteen years, the two sides did not play each other".
  • "During the foundation of the Premier League in 1992, the two teams competed the tier below in the First Division": When were Millwall relegated?
  • "into the first purpose built all-seater stadium": In the country? The world?
  • "Millwall had plans to move the following season into the first purpose built all-seater stadium": Perhaps we should clarify. Did they succeed in doing this? Perhaps we need to be more clear than "planned". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified that. BillyBatty (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was twelve years until West Ham played at Millwall's new ground, The New Den.": Again, can we explain why? It is briefly worth giving the trajectory of the two clubs rather than bland statements like this.
  • "It was a highly eventful game, Millwall missed one penalty": That comma should be a semi-colon or a full stop.
  • "who was subsequently sent off; Violence also broke out between the two sets of fans": And if that is a semi-colon, why is Violence capitalised?
  • "The match became known as The Mothers' Day Massacre": Known by who?
  • "A disciplinary tribunal fined West Ham £115,000 for failing to ensure that their fans did not enter the field of play and refrained from violent, threatening, obscene and provocative behaviour": Are we quoting a regulation here? The language seems a bit odd otherwise, so would some quotation marks be appropriate?
  • I think we need to say that Grant was the manager before we mention the banner, or it is a bit odd until you read on.

I've read to the end of the history section now. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The title for the wartime section is the most tricky. Still not happy with that, but it encapsulates the section better. Also, the supporters/hooligan section could be included in the main history of section. It was bigger, but since a lot of the juiciest bits was moved to the history section already to establish the rivalry, it reads as rather disjointed. What do you think? BillyBatty (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, it might be better in the history section given that a lot is there already. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it. I think it has improved the history section significantly. BillyBatty (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments:

  • Did we lose the part about the General Strike in moving the Supporters section? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to move that. It's in there now. BillyBatty (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "By competition" table, the alignment of numbers looks slightly off to me; not sure whether it's a browser issue, or if it was intentional. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer of the GA Lemonade51 changed the wikitable to comply with MOS:DTT. I think all the inputted data would look better left aligned or centered, not both. Not sure how to do this tho or if the table is wikiperfect as is. BillyBatty (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're almost there. I don't think there are any major issues remaining. However, I think the prose could stand a little tightening in places still. I'll have a look in the next couple of days and see if there is anything that can be tweaked, and then I think I'll be happy to support. But I think I'd like some more "non-sports" eyes on this, to check for sports-speak. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query: "The first meetings between the clubs were friendlies and reserve games: their first meeting ended in a 6–0 home win for Millwall Athletic Reserves (Rovers had been renamed Millwall Athletic in 1889)[4] on 14 December 1895 over a newly formed Thames Ironworks side.[5]": Does ref 4 support the "first meetings" part as well as the name change? If not, the refs need shuffling. Perhaps the name change could be relegated to a note? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4 is name change, 5 first meeting. Put both at end of sentence and added footnote. BillyBatty (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another couple:

  • Ref 38 currently does not point to the article in question, but to the main page of the Times Archive site. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a BBC Sport reference for the game which adequately replaces the subscription ref.--Egghead06 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has completed a Football League double over the other": Do we have a link for double? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article for double in the sense used here. It is explained here though.--Egghead06 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of covered in this article, which contains as much explanation as the glossary article. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support with copy-editing disclaimer: I've been through the article again and tried to prune the prose a little more. I think we are there, but I'd be happier if someone else could have a look at this too. There may be places we could still tighten, and it's more than likely I have missed something, particularly sports-jargon. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Interesting topic. I'm not so active these days, but I'm trying to take a look at the copy. --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dweller: Were you still planning to look over the text? That would be much appreciated to help wrap this up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added the source from the reference for the programme and fixed the sandwich, both right aligned now. BillyBatty (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, the bold section of the lead shouldn't contain any wikilinks. I'd suggest just removing either the links or the bolding, whichever you prefer.
Done - have removed links but don't mind either way.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding alt text to the images to aid screenreaders; it doesn't have to be detailed or overly descriptive.
Done --Egghead06 (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sixty meetings in 16 years". Any reason to be mixing words and numerals here?
It was Sixty meetings in sixteen years, then 60 meetings in 16 years. Somebody else's copy edit has changed it to that. It should be all words, right? BillyBatty (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think so; the MoS doesn't like titles beginning with numerals. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This run was finally broken on 1 September 1904, West Ham's first ever game at Upton Park, which they won 3–0, with two goals from Billy Bridgeman and one by Jack Flynn." I think this one reads as having too many asides. I'd rephrase the middle as "1 September 1904, in a 3–0 victory at West Ham's first ever game at Upton Park, with two goals..." so as to remove one of those pauses.
Done--Egghead06 (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images under the "Upton Park riot" heading are sandwiching the text between them for a bit, which is undesirable. Perhaps moving the World Cup Sculpture image up to just before the heading would alleviate this; it would still float within the same section but a little bit higher up.
Think I finally fixed this, at the tenth attempt! BillyBatty (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Little higher than I had thought but it works just as well, completely removes the issue. GRAPPLE X 18:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "West Ham won the game 3–1 on 25 August 2009, their first win over Millwall in 18 years, at the seventh attempt." I'm assuming this is to say it's the seventh game in eighteen years, but to me it reads like the game itself took seven attempts.
Done - changed to show number of years and number of games during span.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first table of statistics by competition has sorting issues; the "sub-total" row is essentially useless when the table is sorted in any way.
Should sub-total be removed? Unsure how to sort table without breaking it. BillyBatty (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either the sub-total line or the sort function; it's not a long table so sorting isn't vital if you'd rather keep the sub-total line. GRAPPLE X 18:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The absent cells in the list of results are a bit unseemly; closing each row to give empty cells instead would look more uniform
  • In the infobox you give the notation "Home team 1–0 Away Team", but in the "Statistics" section it's "Home team 1 Away team 0". Be uniform, though I think the former looks better.
Done--Egghead06 (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sailor Brown, Peter Buchanan, Johnny Burke, Louis Cardwell, Jimmy Jinks, Harold Pearson also played for both sides as wartime guest players." Consider an "and" between Jinks and Pearson here.
Done--Egghead06 (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Millwall's Bushwackers firm are called The Buccaneers in it." Given that the film is a fictional version of events rather than an historical one, I would consider "Millwall's Bushwackers firm are dramatised/fictionalised/depicted as The Buccaneers", to indicate that it's a "based on" kind of relationship.
Done--Egghead06 (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure a film can "echo" future events (2004 film, 2009 riot). Perhaps "foreshadowing"?
Done--Egghead06 (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never liked "entitled" for naming a work. I'm not 100% sure that it's actually incorrect or not, someone else might need to clarify that.
Done - Don't have a problem with 'entitled' myself but I'm not reviewing it!--Egghead06 (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Football Factory is a film, italicise it.
Done --Egghead06 (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book titles take italics but not quotation marks; if it's an essay or short piece of fiction, go with quote marks but no italics.
Done--Egghead06 (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That 2009 stabbing has been mentioned twice. I assume it wasn't life-threatening since there no details given, but maybe this could be clarified at the first mention? This one's particularly optional.
Saw him on the ground but not sure what happened to the guy stabbed - will leave this to a Millwall expert.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say, it's optional. But if there's any way to reliably add "non-fatal" or the like, it'd help. GRAPPLE X 12:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added detail about his punctured lung and recovery. BillyBatty (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy days (well, not for him). GRAPPLE X 18:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider rearranging the "see also" links; logically London derbies should be listed before any specific London derbies.
Done--Egghead06 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Egghead06 (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • GRAPPLE X 00:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with the amendments made, and am willing to support this one. However, I'm not much of a copyeditor so it's likely I may have overlooked needed tweaks in the prose; in all other elements I'm perfectly satisfied. GRAPPLE X 04:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is three in support. Happy to address anymore improvement suggestions. Any sharp eyed copyeditors out there? BillyBatty (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Cloudz679: Here are some copyedit suggestions and one referencing matter:

some possible copyedits:

  • lead: rephrase the title? Perhaps a little surprising, but I think it would read better "The rivalry between Millwall and West Ham United…" The current first line is already different from the article title due to the absence of F.C.. Also "first opposed each other" doesn't have a good feel to it, could the verb be changed?
Done. BillyBatty (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to improve the morale of workers" - the workers? his workers? workers in general?
Done. BillyBatty (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • when mentioning friendlies for the first time, it may be better for the uninformed reader to use "friendly matches"
Done. BillyBatty (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 23 September 1897, the two sides played a first-team friendly" were the other friendlies not "first-team"?
Clarified that reserve games were played first, then first-team friendlies. BillyBatty (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the "London PFA Fund" a competition? Could possibly use a redlink if it is, or at least a footnote
Redlinked London Professional Footballers Association Charity Fund and Southern Professional Charity Cup, both first-team competitions. BillyBatty (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fifth round FA Cup game" consistency please
Done. Fifth Round all round. BillyBatty (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a piece" - apiece
Done. BillyBatty (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • instead of using as of {{CURRENTYEAR}}, I think you should use {{as of|2014}}, which prompts users to manually update. Otherwise the year updates automatically.
Changed to manual update. BillyBatty (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the South final" - or "South Final" as it is in the linked page?
Capitalised it. BillyBatty (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over four decades the sides only met six times in the Football League, playing in the same league together three times in the 1946–47, 1947–48 and 1978–79 seasons." seems to be awkwardly worded
Over four decades the sides were only in the same tier of the Football League together for three seasons, in 1946–47, 1947–48 and 1978–79. BillyBatty (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Lions 2–1 home league victory" needs an apostrophe
Done. BillyBatty (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1988–89 season is the only meeting of the two teams" - but they met twice, could this be reworded along the lines of "the only season both teams have been in the top division"
Reworded that. BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the two teams competed the tier below in the First Division" - may be worthwhile to note here that it is not the same first division mentioned in the line above, a modifier like "newly formed" "replacement" or similar may be of use
Went with newly formed. BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marlon Harewood replied for West Ham. The result is the largest winning-margin between the sides in the Football League" I read this twice before I understood the sentences are not connected! I first thought the second sentence is a quote. Perhaps you could change the verb. There is already "Mark Robson replied for West Ham" above.
Changed to "scored the West Ham goal". BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The police were forced to unplug the match screen with ten minutes of the game remaining." I don't like this wording, who forced the police, or is it a metaphor? I looked at the source and it's not a particularly good one, perhaps this could be reworded simply "the police unplugged/disconnected the match screen…"
Unplugged. Done. BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forced the game to extra-time" into?
Done. BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Billy Bonds is the only manager to ever manage both clubs" - the only manager to have managed…
Done. BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pat Holland, an FA Cup winner in 1975 with West Ham, served as both assistant manager to Willie Donachie, and was chief scout at Millwall from 2006–09." was Donachie the WHU manager? did these things happen at the same time?
Reworded to "Pat Holland, an FA Cup winner in 1975 with West Ham, served as Millwall assistant manager to Willie Donachie in 2006. After Donachie was fired in 2007, he continued on as chief scout until 2009." BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lomas joined ex-West Ham defender Tim Breacker, who was first-team coach of Millwall." was was Millwall's first-team coach.
Done. BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a former West Ham player, his appointment was unpopular with many Millwall fans." not clear if this refers to Lomas or Breacker
Added clarification to Lomas. BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Brotherly rivalry" section is not particularly well-worded and the reference seems to be unavailable
  • Some of the section names are a little misleading to me, in particular
  • "First top flight meeting: 1988–2008", which sounds like a 20-year long meeting, and
  • "Upton Park riot: 2009–present", which sounds like an ongoing riot
Any alternate suggestions for these? We didn't like the clunky wording of "Wartime and joining the Football League: 1915–45" either. It's quite difficult to summarise often sporadic meetings throughout the years. BillyBatty (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I could find. C679 23:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also add it is very unorthodox to list "Tarrant, Eddie; Richard Lindsay (2010). Millwall: The Complete Record. DB Publishing. ISBN 1-85983-833-2." with surname, firstname and then firstname surname for dual authors. I only noticed it because I saw Tarrant alone had been credited in the short citations. Suggest changing to Tarrant and Lindsay. Suggest changing to Lindsay and Tarrant per the front cover, listing Lindsay first C679 23:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the bibliography name order and added Lindsay to all Tarrant refs, making it Lindsay and Tarrant. BillyBatty (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No ideas for better section names, I'm afraid. Do you have a response for my comments on the "brotherly rivalry" section? C679 08:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just working on that. Moved some things around and added more detail and facts. Removed dodgy reference, added reputable refs from whufc.com, Millwall: The Complete Record, West Ham: The Complete Record and Millwall History Archives. BillyBatty (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better, but I have a burning question from the text as it is, where is the rivalry?! It seems like for the tenure of Ted, Benny was neither playing nor managing (either of which would support this "rivalry". For me, managing or playing for rival teams at different times is not really so significant. But I have a feeling there is something you're not telling me! Thanks, C679 09:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. I can't find any direct rivalry in the sources I have. It's more of a DYK fact of two brothers who were at the helm during very successful periods for both clubs, one who played for both. Rename title to Fenton brothers, taking out the 'rivalry' aspect or remove section as superfluous? BillyBatty (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably say keep it but without a separate sub-section, which adds undue weight. C679 10:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved into main section of Managers. BillyBatty (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good enough for my support. Thanks, C679 10:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- per earlier discussion of further prose checking, doesn't look like anyone else is going to copyedit so I've decided to recuse myself from delegate duties and do it myself, but pls let me know if I've misunderstood anything; some other points:

  • I requested a source review at WT:FAC a while back so I'm hoping that will occur soon.
  • You have a few duplicate links you should review -- use this script to highlight them.
Ran script, only left wartime players that are mentioned in History of rivalry wartime section and again in Players who have played for both teams section. Also author Mike Calvin, as one link is his quote. BillyBatty (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that FN84/85 are sources for the "By competition" table but it's not clear to me where/how the "Full list of results" table is sourced.
Ref 84 sources every first-team game ever played between the sides between 1899 to 2009 in table form, sorted by competition. I can add another ref from page 262 to page 482 in Millwall: The Complete History, which covers every season between 1899 and 2009 and references every game, date, score, competition and attendance covered in the Full list of results. I already added two further refs for the two games that were played after the book was published. Alternatively, it would mean adding 99 individual references for each game. Which is preferable? BillyBatty (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, perhaps I can see where the confusion lay. Don't worry about individual citations. If the (now three) refs are for both tables, then I'd suggest a note above the "By competition" subheader stating "The following statistics are as of 4 February 2012." and put the footnotes there, so we know the citations refer to both tables (and, incidentally, that both tables are correct up to Feb 2012). Obviously also remove the current "As of 4 February 2012.[75][79][84]" Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I moved the note above the subheader to avoid confusion. Added one more ref just for total security that every game and stat is covered. To Confirm, [75] is for the game played in 2011, [79] is for the 2012 game, [84] covers every season individually from 1899 to 2009 and [85] is a table at the back of the book with a summary of 97 first-team games and goals (played up to 2009). BillyBatty (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up, I'm happy with your changes re. my comments but I'd like to see if Brian's satisfied with the sources review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

I have gone through the first of the three columns of citations. There are numerous issues, the most important being the frequent use of non-reliable sources. I have highlighted at least ten of these in the following list. Until these are points resolved I am deferring the review of the remaining columns; I don't think the article can be promoted to FA meantime.

  • Ref 3: Source is "Mail Online", not The Daily Mail
Changed.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7: Apart from its popularity among students, what are the credentials of "Spartacus Educational" that make it a high-quality, reliable source?
Egghead06 found an alternative ref for this, Powles, page 79. Removed. BillyBatty (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10: Publisher is not BBC, it is "h2g2: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition". What makes this a high quality, reliable source for a football club history?
Changed to one from West Ham United's website.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11: What makes this illiterately written source of any quality or reliability?
Changed to one from The Premier League.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 20: Who are the publishers, and what makes the source reliable?
Removed. Already has supporting reference from Lindsay for this game. BillyBatty (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23: Inappropriate source
Replaced with one from thestadiumguide.com. BillyBatty (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27: Another dubious source
Removed ref and sentence it supported. No other source can be found for this statement. BillyBatty (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 33: Lacks publisher details. Tony Hogg is co-author – see here
Added Independent UK Sports Publications and Tony McDonald. BillyBatty (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 38: The publisher is actually "The Chris Whiting Show". What makes this a high-quality, reliable source?
Unlike 39, this one wasn't conducted by an official survey body. Removed. BillyBatty (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 39: This seems to be the source of information used in ref. 38. It presents data which, it says, are the results of an online survey. Why should this be considered as reliable?
Replaced with a book ref, Spaaij, page 136, even tho featured articles Arsenal F.C., Aston Villa F.C., Luton Town F.C. and York City F.C. all cite this reference. BillyBatty (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 42: Typo in title needs fixing
Fixed. BillyBatty (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 44: Identical to ref 15
Removed dupe ref. BillyBatty (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 47 and 56: Who publishes this? the text in 47 is by Eamonn Dunphy who is a recognised writer on football and other subjects, but the number of uncorrected typos suggests that editorial control is not rigorous.
Removed 47, two other refs still support statement. Replaced 56 with a Lindsay and Tarrant ref. BillyBatty (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 48: Definitely does not qualify as a reliable source.
Not sure why Cass Pennant's work is not acceptable. He may be a former hooligan but he is a published author. However, have removed it and replaced it with another book source.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, he's a hooliologist! I hope that doesn't mean Ref 139 is dodgy too. That's a great quote. BillyBatty (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few other general sources-related issues:

  • Why have you not used short citations for references that are listed in the bibliography? Repeating book titles time and time again overcomplicates the citations list, especially with two books that have very similar titles and authorship.
I believe that looks better... BillyBatty (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bibliography needs to be rearranged into alphabetical order
Done. BillyBatty (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two books in the bibliography have no citations: Murray, and Blows & Hogg. These should be transferred to a "further reading" section
Added. BillyBatty (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - This candidate has been here since before Christmas but I still see issues with the prose and will be archiving this nomination in a few minutes. Here, for example "In 2013 a member of West Ham's hooligan Inter City Firm was jailed for organising violence between West Ham and Millwall fans. It had been planned at an FA Cup match...", the antecedent is "a member" not "violence". The prose would benefit from a fresh a pair of eyes - there are lots of clumsy phrases. Graham Colm (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2014 (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/Millwall_F.C.–West_Ham_United_F.C._rivalry/archive1&oldid=1138467047"