Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aston Villa F.C./archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Example user, WikiProject Football, [2]
- Unknown Temptation, could you notify the major editors and record that above please? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notifications made: [3][4]. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unknown Temptation, could you notify the major editors and record that above please? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review section
editI am nominating this featured article for review because the issues I raised on WikiTalk Football have not been touched at all in the last two weeks. The middle years of the club's 150-year history are very much undersourced: I count eight full paragraphs with no sources. In many others, there are sentences that follow citations and are probably also unsourced. There is also an argument that this history section is too long as subsidiary articles exist: historic clubs like Liverpool F.C. have a history section with no sub-sections. I haven't evaluated the quality of other sections but the issues of the history section are glaring and quite clearly this is not at Featured Article status as it stands. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - the Birmingham City F.C. article looks more likely to be a featured article than Aston Villa when comparing these two articles. I admit, I never knew about this while adding on the Talk:Aston Villa F.C. page, which may be of use but undersourcing is definitely the reason for this FA review. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with all that has been said on the history section. I'd also like to note that the honours section has a new format which is outlined in the WP:FOOTY template, it is seen on the Liverpool and Manchester United articles. If there's a willing editor, this article has the capacity to remain an FA with some work. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC while various editors are adding information to the site, it seems like these are updates of the roster and do not address the concerns listed above. Z1720 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC; two CN tags were addressed but significant issues still remain. Hog Farm Talk 13:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
edit- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist uncited text remains. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - agreeing with what everyone is saying here. Several paragraphs in the history section are still not sourced, and other paragraphs are very undersourced as well. I also agree that the history section is too long, FAs like Ipswich Town and Manchester City do show that you can do a history section with subsections, as long they are short and concise. Aston Villa's history subsections go into too much detail for the main article. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per JpTheNotSoSuperior. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.