Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2016 [1].

2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2003–04 football season was a memorable one for Arsenal players and supporters, their team became the first over a century to go an entire league campaign undefeated. Arguably manager Arsène Wenger's greatest achievement since arriving at the club, I'm hoping to get this to FA standard before his 20th anniversary in October. It's an comprehensive account of how the season panned out, filled with the essential statistics. I feel it satisfies the criteria hence the nom, and welcome any sort of comment, cheers. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

~~Arsenal fared below par in the cups,~~ ~~- speaking as a Spurs supporter, I take offence that "par" is assumed to mean Cup Final level or above. I'd just say "less well" here....~~

'~~'.... meant Arsenal were considered front-runners for the Premier League +"title" here? Otherwise it sounds like they were in the Championship and frontrunners for promotion...~~

~~Tottenham had not beaten their rivals since November 1999 and their last win at Highbury came a decade ago~~ ~~- "a decade previous(ly)?"~~

Nothing is jumping out at mre prose-wise after reading through a couple of times, hence support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"scored five past Inter Milan..." I would change past to against
"Pirès in the second half scored the winner.." I would switch it around so it reads Pires scored the winner in the second half
"Manchester United who now lay in second place." -> Manchester United, who were now in second place
"on 20 December 2003, the setting for where their title challenge "derailed" eight months ago." I think this could be worded better
"...put on a display Wenger reflected as being one of the best of the season." Why did Wenger rate the performance so highly? A quote would be nice
"Arsenal stood in first spot – two points clear of Manchester United." -> Arsenal were in first place, two points clear of Manchester United
"...winning five out of five matches." -> winning all five matches
"...which eclipsed a club record set by George Graham's team of 1990–91." Unless i'm missing something, the club record that was broken isn't specified.
"although they played one more game..." -> although they had played one more game
"as of 2013 is still the youngest player to turn out for the club." Is this still the case in 2016?

Looks good apart from these. NapHit (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC) @NapHit:, cheers for taking a look, I've made corrections. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

I did a copyedit pass; please revert if I screwed anything up.

Suggest changing the table headings to "Loan expired" since they are all now expired.
You say 13 unbeaten matches was a record, and then later say 24 was the old record for Arsenal, and later say 30 was the league record. Presumably 13 beat the Premier League seasons record only -- if so, I think that should be clearer. When they reached 30, whose record did they beat? Come to that, when they beat 13, did they beat their own or someone else's record?
"who cut it back for Pirès to sidefoot": I don't see "sidefoot" in the source; am I missing something? All I see is "steer".
Any reason why you explain the competition for the League Cup and FA Cup, but not the Champion's League? I don't think I care which you do, but is there a reason not to be consistent?
"defensive improvements, which rued them a year ago": "rued" is the wrong word here; I think you mean something like "since defensive mistakes the previous season had been costly".
"the first scheme was a relative success as only a third of all bonds were sold": I don't follow; why does this make the scheme a relative success?

Tweaked this, the bond scheme didn't do as well as the club anticipated but they made lots of money is where I was going with it.

-- That's everything I can see; the article is in fine shape and I expect to support once these issues are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments @Mike Christie: have made corrections. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great article; even a Chelsea fan like me can appreciate it. One more suggestion, since I had to look this up: when you say that 30 matches unbeaten from the start of the season is a record, I think it would be good to add a note explaining that the Preston North End unbeaten season was only 22 league matches long. I'd assumed (without really thinking about it) when I read about their record at the top of the article that it was 42 matches, like the old First Division. However, I'm happy to support whether you add that or not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Mike, have added a note now. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus

Kit images: Is there a source somewhere for how the kit looks?
File:Arsene Wenger.JPG: Free image on Commons. It's a photo of the manager of the club, the caption is supported by the text, seems pertinent insofar as the section of the article in question discusses his role in the club. Plausible EXIF, license supported by external source, but the source link should not directly point to the file especially when it's broken. Also I see that the file exists elsewhere on the web in higher resolution, but these files look like they are zoomed in; some are attributed back to Commons.
File:Robert Pires2.JPG: Free file on Commons. Caption is supported a bit farther down in the article text, the image seems pertinent as it illustrates a person with relevance to the events described in the paragraph. Same comments on the license and EXIF and web presence as above.
File:Thierry Henry 2007.jpg: Free image on Commons. Caption seems to be supported elsewhere in the section (it was one league match?), the image shows an individual who is mentioned a few times in the section - moderately relevant. No EXIF and the often inconsistent EXIFs of the uploader's other files bother me a little. Doesn't appear elsewhere on the web though, mostly.
File:Trophy presentation Highbury 2004.JPG: Free image on Commons. Same comments on the license and EXIF and web presence as on Wenger and Pires files, but no higher size files online. A bit confused by the caption - the ceremony takes place at Highbury which is Arsenal's home stadium but the trophy ceremony mentioned in the text takes place at their rivals' stadium?
File:Revie Stand, Elland Road.jpg: Free image on Commons. Caption supported by the filepage, the stadium photographed is apparently the place where one of the events described there took place. Image is from Flickr and has plausible EXIF; why does the Flickr link redirect to a login page? Image appears elsewhere on the web, sometimes with attribution to Commons and sometimes not.
File:Sign, Highbury Stadium - geograph.org.uk - 293931.jpg: Free image on Commons. File comes from an external webpage which shows a matching license. I wonder about commons:COM:Freedom of panorama though, does it apply here? Otherwise, image is pertinent to the section; I presume the caption is taken from the Commons filepage?
File:Arsenal open top bus parade 2004.jpg: Free image on Commons. Image is pertinent to the section and has plausible caption. I notice from looking at the deleted revisions that the Commons file has a lower resolution than the deleted enwiki file, may be worth remedying. No EXIF, but no larger resolution copies on the web.

Otherwise, all the ^files need WP:ALTTEXT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review Jo-Jo, have added the alt text. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Laser brain

Fn 5 - dead link, fix or link to archive
Sometimes you've used the "subscription needed parameter" and sometimes you haven't, for The Times. I checked fn 170 and a subscription is needed, so make sure they are consistent whenever you provide a URL.
Why did you group two sources into fn 104 but not anywhere else where multiple sources follow a statement?

Otherwise, looks good! --Laser brain (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers @Laser brain: for the source review, have seperated the citations and made other adjustments. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 01:19, 15 September 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.