Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Luton Town F.C./archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [1].

Luton Town F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): Cliftonian • talk 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

The article has had a successful peer review, and a lot of work has gone into it, both by me and by others. I believe it is now on a par with other featured articles on football clubs, and am therefore nominating it. Cliftonian • talk 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Random comment: "The club have been looking for a new site since 1955." Should "have" be "has"? Mm40 (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. In English English the common usage on sports teams is that even in the singular they are referred to in the plural. Look at this article from the BBC for an example. Cliftonian • talk 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was only for proper nouns; i.e., "Luton Town F.C. are" but "the club is". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the BBC, evidently… ("The club are serious") Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I much prefer the Americans' use of the formal agreement in cases like this; I'm British, and even I hate "Luton F.C. are". Unfortunately, I don't make the rules, so we're stuck with it. But for "club", it depends on whether the emphasis is on the club itself, or its members; with this example it can go either way. I'd go for the singular. :) Steve T • C 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, prefer the American practice. I've even heard British and Australian speakers refer to corporations with this dissonant plural verb; that is going too far, I think, and "the club are" is, too—why not "the members are", if you want to stress the plurality of the subject? It's hard to take a strict line on it, though, and my opinion here is only a personal one. Tony (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it just comes down to what you're used to — having grown up with the usage, hearing anything other than it is very jarring to me. The BBC and other British media use it — for example The Times (an example from them here), The Independent (example here) and The Guardian (example here). Surely an English football article should use native grammar? Cliftonian • talk 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so, but it pains me every time I see it. Maybe it's tolerable for proper nouns that can't be plurals, but I find it rediculous for common nouns. "The club is", "the clubs are". Upon a quick run-through, my only concern is that the managers section is somewhat redundant to List of Luton Town F.C. managers. I would cut some of that section. Reywas92Talk 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of the managers section, it is already cut down to only include managers in charge for 50 games. The reason for this is the precedent set by other FA football club articles such as York City F.C.. I personally think that the best solution is to keep it as it is, but I'm open to debate about it. The feelings you have about the "club are" usage are replicated on my part whenever I see "club is" — as I said above, I find it very jarring indeed. I appreciate that it's the correct American English usage, and I can put up with it — I just don't see why any article should use anything other than the native dialect. Cliftonian • talk 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about it; I'd be very surprised if anyone even considered opposing based on regional inconsistencies in collective noun use. (Aside: you might find this discussion useful). Steve T • C 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers fella. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I have been mulling over this, I must say, saying it in singular sounds nicer, anyway, now to do a bit of prose massage...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same site is cited by List of Sunderland A.F.C. players, a featured article. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same site is cited by York City F.C., a featured article. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, I've removed it. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same site is cited by Bobby Robson, a featured article. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Replaced with reference to Bailey. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same site is cited by York City F.C., a featured article. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI - link checker tool shows one dead link but it works when you click through.
I had noticed, thanks anyway. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (I noticed Herald & Post, WHen Saturday Comes, and Luton Times)
Ok, sorted. I believe that When Saturday Comes is self-published — do you think it's necessary to mention them twice in each reference? Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's not. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources are cited by other featured articles, then surely their reliability has already been established? Cliftonian • talk 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. Prior to the middle of 2008, source checking at FAC was more haphazard, so it's not a given that the source was checked. And one above is a featured list, not a featured article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok… Historical Kits is maintained by Dave and Matt Moor, who cite their sources as can be seen for example on their Luton Town page (the little letters by the kits, and the sources at the bottom). England Stats is confirmed as reliable by The Guardian here, and England Football Online is cited by The Independent here. The Football Fans Census reliability I think can be confirmed here. Cliftonian • talk 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The football fans census bit only shows that they provide a grant for studies, not that they are considered reliable by other sources (like the englandstats site being used in the Guardian). The England Football Online is borderline with what you're using, the Independent isn't actually citing them, they are referring readers to them, I'll leave that out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Likewise, I'll leave the kit site out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, it's not exactly contentious information after all. With that, the three sites are up to other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
England Football Online is generally solid, but if the ref to it is an issue, RSSSF provides an alternative [2]. Football Fans Census reports usually make it into the media (e.g. [3], [4], and as one of three cites for a single sentence I see no problem. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Early into the article, I'm finding a lot of problems with the prose. These are just examples of problems; I don't claim to have caught everything. Please consider finding someone to copy-edit the article, because it needs some attention.

  • "with financial difficulties causing the club..." is one of these awkward sentences that uses "with" as a connector. To fix this, use "as financial difficulties caused" or "; financial difficulties caused". It's worth checking for sentences with this structure throughout, as taking care of them will make a big difference in the writing.
OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: Watch for redundant wording, such as this: "brought on by the club's isolated location crippled the club financially. The club were far from the northern heartlands of the Football League, and so it was too expensive for the club to even compete." See how many clubs there are? Change a couple of them and this part will be much better.
OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and were founder members of the Southern Football League in 1894." Is "founder member" used commonly in Britain? I'd have thought "founding member" was more typical.
Please see above. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Italy linked? Who doesn't know what that is?
OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this section, I sense an overuse of "only"; for example, it isn't necessary in "but the club managed to win back promotion after only two years".
OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a couple of spaced em dashes, which go against the Manual of Style. Either make them unspaced or change them to smaller en dashes.
OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the spine of the team was sold on." What does this mean? Sounds quite informal, to be honest.
OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This team finally reached the top flight in 1955–56". Some here would consider "finally" to be slightly POV.
OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, they were relegated the following season, and had fallen to the Fourth Division by 1965." The "had fallen" part does not work at all with the rest of the sentence.
OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More informal language: "Two years later Malcolm Macdonald fired them to another promotion".
OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Club Identity: Second word should be decapitalized per MoS, because it is not a proper noun.
OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the references, all of the page ranges should have en dashes, not hyphens.
OK, sorted. Cheers for all your comments. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (17-14) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator told me on my talk page that he asked for a copy-edit from Casliber. I'm waiting on that before re-reviewing. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Dweller has been copy-editing here recently. Please post here when he's done so I can offer a re-review. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-edit is finished, you want to have a read through now? – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Much, much happier with the prose now. Before coming here, I fixed a few minor things, which weren't worth posting here. Good work all around in polishing the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, pending the promised copyedit, which is sorely needed IMO. Just a couple of additional points:
    • The discussion above does not get directly to the heart of the sloppiness in this and far too many other sports articles. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that "club" is singular. Period. No if, no buts. The only possible exception would be if the subject were the members of the club, rather than the club itself, which is not the case in this article. "Luton Town", on the other hand is often conventionally consider plural, as in "Luton Town play their games at ...". But this article is not even consistent in its mistaken belief that "club" is plural, as in "The club produces an official match programme ..."
OK. That's what we'll use for it. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 13:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are other signs of sloppy prose as well, such as "Luton first adopted their white and black colours for the 1920–21 season, the same year they rejoined the Football League." The "1920–21 season" is of course not a year.
--Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit: I'll give it a whizz. Not sure how quickly I'll be able to turn it around. I'll go with the nominator's (NB not my) preference and try to make consistent all references to the team and the club as plural. --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I misunderstood; the club is singular, but the team, i.e., Luton Town, is plural. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How we're doing it is that the CLUB (i.e. Luton Town Football Club; for example "Luton Town Football Club was founded in 1885") is singular and the TEAM (i.e. the players; "Luton Town play in white, orange and blue") is plural. That's my perception of it in any case. As I said before, I don't really mind that much, although I find the singular usage quite strange.
  • Comments From a football point of view (i.e. 1b and 1c), following changes made after peer review I have no major concerns.
    • On my monitor the image of Harford causes a large gap between header and table. Is there another place the image could go?
I've made it a bit smaller, and moved it right to the top of the section – does this solve the problem? Cliftonian (Talk •Contibs) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, at 1024x768, the list takes up about 90% of the screen width, so there isn't really room for it to go inline. Oldelpaso

(talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I think Micky's going to have to go. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 14:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The club has been looking for a new site since 1955" is a bit jarring, and implies a constant search rather than several different initiatives.
OK, I've re-written it as "The club has made several attempts to relocate, and first stated their intent to do so in 1955." Better? Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why was the 1921 fire mysterious?
Because nobody knows what caused it. Still, I agree that it doesn't really sound very encyclopaedic so I've removed it. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support if the prose opposers are satisfied. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have the opposers been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'll wait until the copy-edit's done and then I'll get them to come back. Yes. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support okay, I have chipped in here and there to buff this up, and I think it is over the line prose-wise at the moment, nd nothing jumps out at me to fix. Consider this provisional until the opposers speak up. If they still note material needing fixing I will try to address. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this now well on the way to FA after all the copyediting that's been done, but I do still have a concern about the flag icons used in the Current squad and Managers sections. Another current FAC candidate has been criticised because of its failure to conform to the MoS guidelines on flags, and this article seems to have the same problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. With all the work that's been done I think this article now meets the FA criteria. I do though still have one small issue that I'd like to see resolved. The flag key for Current squad list nationalities as "English", "Irish", and so on, but the key for Managers gives "England", "Ireland", etc. I think it would be preferable for them to be consistent. That's obviously just a minor point though. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made them consistent now, as "English", "Irish", "Scottish", etc. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose
    • "Division Four" - odd, I don't think I've ever heard an Englishman use this terminology for the Fourth Division...
    • "... the club to fall in just three years from..." could use some commas here I reckon, like "... the club to fall, in just three years, from..."
    • spell is used twice in the last para of the lead, a touch repetitive.
    • "formed on Sunday, 11 April 1885" is Sunday really necessary here?
    • "and won its championship" - odd phrasing. Perhaps - "won the title" or something?
    • "... when war broke ..." that war is linked to WWI, as is World War One a sentence or so later. Overlinking.
    • Is there a good reason we're linking sock in this article?
    • "fourth in their division" just "the division" would suffice I think.
    • "were sold on" - "on" is a little redundant - also, do you have details of to whom these players were sold?
    • "to the Second Division, then the second tier of English football" could be misconstrued as two consecutive promotions. Perhaps remove "then".
    • "had scored 10 in one match" against whom?
    • "as well as Irish internationals" at this point you could link to the 1950+ Ireland national football team.
    • "Luton bounced back" a touch journalistic for my taste.
    • "Division Four championship" again, I could be wrong but most of us would say "Fourth Division championship"
    • " .... two years later Malcolm Macdonald's goals helped them to another promotion,[34] and comedian Eric Morecambe became a director of the club" - did Morecambe become director because of the promotion? The sentence could read that way.
    • "Luton Town staff" - I think it's players and technical staff actually.
    • "A respite was found in the" -> "A respite came in the"
    • I'm confused how you contract "Straw-plaiters" to Hatter. Sounds more like rhyming slang...
    • "Luton suddenly changed" - suddenly? They just changed. I suppose you mean the change was a big one. I think it should be rephrased.
    • Avoid squashing text between images per WP:MOS#Images
    • "season.[60]." spare full stop.
    • "10,226[1][2]" - I know it's a good idea to cite things as close as possible but (1) why two cites for one fact and (2) you could move this a couple of words to the right, after the comma.
    • "World War II " previous war you referred to as "World War One" - be consistent. And if I had a preference for articles on English subjects, I'd use "First World War" and "Second World War", but I may be in the minority.
    • "it quickly became unpopular" I seem to recall it also became considered an unfair advantage for Luton playing at home, controversial in fact. Anything available on that?
    • I know it's chronologically correct but "Work began a year later on converting the ground to an all-seater." seems squeezed in between the sentences about away fans. Can we reorganise this?
    • "to an all-seater was " - "to an all-seater ground was..." perhaps.
    • Graph - worth explaining the huge dip (early 60s) then the huge rise (late 60s) in the caption if you can do it succinctly?
    • "Even then the ground was ..." reinforce where we are - "Even then Kenilworth Road was...".. then "... and its location..."
    • "following the club's takeover in 2008" I didn't see this explicitly mentioned in the history section.
    • "its current peers" - are these clubs that are local or clubs in the same league?
    • 138443 needs a comma, as does any other value over 999.
    • "have dwindled since the installation of seats and the club's fall from grace" - the capacity didn't dwindle from all-seater introduction, it was step-change reduced. As for "fall from grace", another journalistic phrase.
    • "Industrial and provident Society" our own article capitalises Provident - Industrial and Provident Society.
    • "as either Happy Harry or Harry the Hatter" well I guess he's known as both then or is it pre-determined which one he's called on a given occasion?
    • "Luton holds the superior record in the fixture" - you haven't mentioned a fixture yet. Perhaps "in the fixture between the clubs"
    • "There is also animosity between Luton Town fans and those of west London club Queens Park Rangers" why? It may seem an impertinent question but there is animosity between supporters of most clubs to one degree or other - what makes this QPR-hatred significant and why does it exist?
    • "the most Football League appearances," - ensure you state this is "for the club" unless he made more Football League appearances than anyone else in history?
    • "with 276, 162, 154, 122 and 103 respectively" not sure this is required, it's certainly inelegant for the prose.
    • Link cap appropriately.
    • Bailey, Collings and Hayes books - I don't think you need to continually repeat the title in the specific references.
    • Sport in Luton is a supercat and can be removed.
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All sorted. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Club identity section is still squashing text between images, against WP:MOS recommendations. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better? – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on my display (1280 pixels wide) it's still squashed, and we need to deal with people who have 800 pixels-wide screens. Also, no mention of the QPR thing either. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it a bit further down. On QPR, I can't find anything on the reasons behind it. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay for that section but now (on my display) the crests flood into the following section, push the stadium image down and then squash text between that image and the graph... As for QPR, you have a source to back you up, perhaps you should state that a "recent survey" or something similar has shown this rivalry to be significant. After all, that's what's important, verifiable notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted the pictures and the QPR thing. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All that's left is references I think - 17 should be p not pp, 29 has a hyphen which should be an en-dash, ref 74 should be p not pp. Most BBC references should have a date field, e.g. 53 was published on 13 April 2009. Ref 93 should link FIFA (since you've linked BBC). Ref 104 has a different date format from others. Check 63 and 64 too. Plus you could link New Scientist. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all done. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except for ref 73... needs a date. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this is picking the nits off the nits but I'm still niggled by the inconsistency on when you link and when you don't link publisher and work in the {{cite web}} template. You seem to link BBC always, but not Football Association or Football League. You link The Independent but not When Saturday Comes. Is there a method? Otherwise I'm happy. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image grounds as follow:

  • File:Luton Town.svg: is this a copyrighted image? If yes, it is definitely not low in resolution (hence preventing possible commercial misuse) by any means. If no, by what means is it not copyrighted?
  • File:Luton Town 1919.jpg: no proof that this was published in 1920. It could have been just as easily first published in 1935 as the club's 50th anniversary year book.
  • File:LutonTownFCBadge1973-1987.png: "because it represents the subject of this article.", so what? Is that not what File:Luton Town.svg supposed to be for? What aspects of this logo cannot be described by words alone, and what significance does it have to the subject (this significance should be in the text of the article)?
  • File:LutonTown19942005.png: very thin commentary on this old logo. The commentary is plain description; there is not a feel of historical significance to require a knowledge of this design. While File:LutonTownFCBadge1973-1987.png is different enough from the current logo (and is the very first club badge to boot), this 1994 badge has elements already shown in the current logo and need not illustration to have readers envisage what it could look like.
  • File:LutonTownFCLeaguePositions.png: where did the data for this chart come from?

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain on appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am not certain why the nationalities of the players/managers have to be emphasized with flags. Are they fighting out an international competition within the club? Is there some controversy within the club over the nationalities of the players? Why are we displaying nationalities of players in a club that is not representing a country? Jappalang (talk)

  • On your first point, I did not make the SVG (I do not know how) and therefore have no control over it. If you feel so strongly about it, then we'll have to get somebody else to look into making it smaller.
  • I've changed the image to one published in 1909, if it makes you happier.
  • On the badges, I've removed the second one, but kept the first. In my eyes this badge is significant to the club's history and therefore should be kept.
  • I'd added my source to the chart's description page.
  • On the flags, see here. It is MoS that for a sportsperson should have their sporting nationality illustrated.
Cheers, – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 06:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is copyrighted, then we should not allow possible high resolution exploitation of the image for us to claim fair use. SVGs do not lose details when resized; hence they would come into conflict with policies. It is better to use a PNG in this case (File:Luton Town.png, which I have done so.
I've changed the logo back to SVG, please refer to Manchester City F.C. & Everton F.C., just want to show you some example of many Featured Article football club that uses SVGified logo Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 11:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Other stuff exists" is not a sufficient argument I'm afraid. I've switched it back. You're well intentioned mate, but I think that for copyrighted stuff PNG is the way to go – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For File:LutonTownFCBadge1973-1987.png, you would have to rewrite the fair-use rationale in the image's page. "because it represents the subject of this article." is no longer correct since the new badge is representing the subject. The FUR should stress the significance of this badge and what aspects cannot be accurately represented with words.
  • File:LutonTown190910.jpg: yes, the caption ("Luton Town were ninth in the Southern League last season.") does imply this image was published in 1910. However, we need a source from where this image was obtained. Judging from its quality, it is a scan. From which publication is this from? At the very least, supply the website this is obtained from. Unfortunately, this is a British work. To store items on Commons, the works must be public domain in US, and in the work's country of origin (UK in this case). As no proof is given that Cox died more than 70 years ago, this image is not public domain in UK. In fact, if this Cox from Luton is William Harold Cox, then he was still alive 50 years ago.[5][6][7] Move this image to Wikipedia and use {{PD-1923}} and {{Do not move to Commons}}.
Awaiting feedback and actions. Jappalang (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the SVG/PNG, ok.
  • OK, I've done as you asked.
  • OK, I've done as you asked.
– Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:LutonTown1909-10.jpg: point the source to the page (html) that displays the image; do not point directly to the image's link. In this case, historykits has disabled direct linking, so we cannot verify the image's presence. Jappalang (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed?
– Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed?
– Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment Luton Town was a founder member of the Southern Football League in 1894, and, after finishing as runners-up in its first two seasons, the team left to help form the United League. - seems clunky to me. Would Luton Town was a founder member of the Southern Football League in 1894, although, after finishing as runners-up in its first two seasons, the club transferred to the United League. be better. Otherwise the article is much better than their football (: jimfbleak (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. It should be emphasised that the club was a founder member of the United League as well as the Southern. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Fantastic work, I've noticed a few bits and bobs.
    • I think it would flow better if the brackets in "(the Conference National)" were replaced with commas.
    • The "south of England" link needs changing to Southern England.
    • "...record for most league..." --> "...record for the most league..."?
    • For most of the article, the "First Division" (as opposed to "Division One") format is used, but this consistency is disrupted in footnote B.
  • Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) My turn.

  • "Luton Town was a founder member " Not "Luton Town were..."?
    • No.
  • "became a director of the club" So they had multiple directors at any given time?
    • Yes, English football clubs have loads.
  • "from the northern heartlands of the Football League, crippled" No comma.
    • Ok.
  • "ten point deduction"-->ten-point deduction
    • Ok.
  • "in order to make Luton Town more recognisable." "in order" is almost always unnecessary.
    • Ok.
  • "when they spent a solitary season in orange and blue" "solitary" is probably unnecessary.
    • Ok.
  • "in time for the start of 1905–06." Can you append "season" to the end of that? "...for the start of the 1905–06 season."
    • Ok.
  • "road which runs along"-->road that runs along
    • Ok.
  • "Both records will almost certainly stand until the club relocates to a larger ground, as Kenilworth Road's present capacity is less than half of either of these figures." Source?
    • Ok.
  • Footnotes B and C need refs, maybe?
    • No they don't. It's a very well known fact.

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 22:34, 4 July 2009 (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/Luton_Town_F.C./archive1&oldid=1088822863"