Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sheffield Wednesday F.C./archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Sheffield Wednesday F.C.

Sheffield Wednesday F.C.

edit

Self-nom. Has been improved immensly by several editors during the past few months and has recently been through a peer review. josh (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object: The following corrections: Support: It would be better if you guys put the images in more appropriate places but, nevertheless, it's certainly a good article that deserves it's FA Status
What is wrong with where the images are now? What do you suggest? -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 07:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where this image is from, I'm not even 100% sure that it is geniune, so unless anyone else can come up with a source for it I would be happy to see it removed from the page and deleted! -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this. I couldn't locate it anywhere on the web. Also the caption was incorrect as the modern version of the owl was adopted in 1970. josh (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The crest has now been replaced with the actual crest used prior to 1970 along with two other crests used since then. The section has also been expanded to reflect this. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image info was vandalised, it's PD 216.189.165.232 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image source and copyright information now added. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now corrected -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rivalry section has now been added. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few things which need copyediting, e.g. After a difficult search the club finally bought some land in the village of Owlerton, which at the time was several miles outside the city boundaries and the club was secured for the next century. is a run-on sentence. Later in the article there are several spelling errors, and there's quite a bit of awkward phrasing in the Records section.
Done -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear what the first paragraph of the Fanzines and support (perhaps change to Support and fanzines?) section is trying to convey. The phrase Sheffield Wednesday have had a relatively large number of fanzines over the years which supplement, oppose and complement the club's official magazine and match day programme tells the reader little, and is an example of peacock terms. Oldelpaso 11:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This section has now been changed to Support with fanzines as a subsection. The offending phrase has been changed. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. A good article, but some issues need resolving. There's plenty but all of them should be quick to fix.
All my objections have been satisfactorily dealt with, so I change my vote to whole-hearted Support. Qwghlm 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's the rationale for the inclusion of the players listed under Notable Players? Looking at the list, they all seem like "Wednesday legends" but there's no actual specific reason why that ten or so have been chosen and not any other notable players. Personally I'd prefer it if you just had the link to list of players under that heading. HornetMike 19:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sheffield_Wednesday_F.C./archive1&oldid=1138471307"