Wikipedia:Featured article review/Everton F.C./archive2
- 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 removed by Dana boomer 13:04, 28 September 2010 [1].
Review commentary
editEverton F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: SenorKristobbal, all listed projects: spoken Wikipedia, Football, England, Merseyside
Firstly, the article has unsourced parts tagged by others and some unsourced paragraphs
- Undue weight on recent seasons, when nothing special has happened, and more successful 1960s and early years are not mentioned in much detail
- Ilikeeatingwaffles has addressed this.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heavy reliance on primary sources when many 3rd party refs are available for a major club's history
- Toffeeweb while looking reasonable for an amateur grassroots site is not preferred under the WP:WIAFA of high-quality RS vis a vis history texts
- Started to remove toffeeweb refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other non-RS include footballeconomy.com, bluekipper, etc
- Some refs are not consistently formatted, eg italics in newspapers
- list of famous fans is undue weight. Most players with even a handful of games have more impact than some pop star who attends matches, and this can be verified per weight in newspapers
- Removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never understood the need to have world cup players. They aren't particularly notable for Everton, some players may have only played a few games for Everton, then played 1 group game in the World Cup finals. How does that make them a notable former player when compared to hall of famers?
- Apart from that, the work done already seems to have alleviated the majority of yellowmonkey's concerns. I think a couple more of the toffeeweb refs could be replaced but the majority of the primary ones are neccessary ones in my opinion: links to supporters clubs can't really be anything but primary. I agree that the four primary sources used in the history section could be replaced bu third party book refs, but I don't doubt their factual accuracy, nor the accuracy of the article. Woody (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Agree with above-raised concerns about sourcing, as there appears to be some unsourced chunks throughout, and wholly unreferenced paragraphs in a few places. Also, some concerns about short-paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
edit- Featured article criteria of concern are sourcing, undue weight YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per comments by YellowMonkey, Woody and Cirt. Above those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 00:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – There's simply too much unreferenced writing for an FA. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Not a single book used, sections with no refs. Sandman888 (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.