Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present)/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 not promoted 00:08, 17 February 2008.

History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present)


Hi there, I believe this article meets all the FA standards. It is part of the Aston Villa F.C. topic that I am attempting to push towards Featured Topic status. The history of Aston Villa is too long to condense into a single article and as such is split into two: History of Aston Villa F.C. (1874-1961) and History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present). It is currently a good article after a review by The Rambling Man. It has also been reviewed by a Blues fan so as to ensure its neutrality. I think it now meets the FA criteria. As always, I will endeavour to respond to comments quickly. Thanks. Woody (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now
 * A few statements need expanding or rewording
 * "The League Cup win of 1961 was to be something of a pinnacle." This really doesn't mean much without any context especially as the opening sentence. Something of seems very vague, either it was a pinnacle or wasn't?
 * "had developed neither" or had neither developed. If it was simply one negative statement, it would had not developed.
 * Instability section, use of the cliche "came to a head" twice in as many sentences.
 * In the Taylor, Venglos, Atkinson section "Their second-place finish". I can't see any other time a dash is used but I realise this may be because it's used here more as a single adjective.
 * The pinnacle has been changed slightly. However, there will always be that jump between the two, it is in the nature of the split between two pages. Changed "had developed" and "Instability". The dash is intended due to the adjective, though I am no grammar buff. Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All look okay now. Though I'm going to change nor to or given your other edit. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally appreciate the reason for the pinnacle situation. Is there anyway it can be linked to the previous history section? If not don't worry. Peanut4 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some more references are perhaps needed
 * "After these results, and because of declining health, Joe Mercer resigned in July 1964."
 * "The board had also sold two of Villa's most valuable players, Phil Woosnam and Tony Hateley."
 * "The fans' calls for the board to resign became more and more pronounced when Villa finished sixteenth in the Second Division in 1968."
 * "Ellis left the club in a good position." unless the statement is qualified by the following sentence, then it perhaps ought to be a good position on the field.
 * "Spink went on to make a number of "world class" saves in the game from the highly experienced Bayern strikeforce, which included Karl-Heinz Rummenigge."
 * "At the AGM in October 1982, it was revealed that the club were in £1.6 million of debt, mainly due to escalating wages and building costs, including the construction of the North Stand."
 * "Aston Villa's new manager was Ron Atkinson, who had achieved considerable success with West Bromwich Albion, Manchester United and more recently Sheffield Wednesday."
 * "His transfer policy was successful, with Aston Villa finishing as runners-up to Manchester United in the inaugural Premier League season of 1992–93."
 * "Whilst Gregory remained in his job, the relationship between him and Ellis was strained."
 * "Chairman Doug Ellis made a surprise decision to appoint Graham Taylor in January 2002."
 * "O'Leary transformed the team"
 * "After several years of speculation and failed bids, the 23-year reign of Doug Ellis as chairman came to an end." Though everything that follows could be said to back this up I suppose?
 * "Villa started the 2006–07 Premiership campaign well,"
 * Upto the O'Leary one, they are all covered by existing refs. I have reworded and reffed the O'Leary one. The Doug Ellis one is backed up by the refs after that. His reign ended, that is obvious. I have added in a 2006-07 ref. Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather the refs be put in more than once, because some of these statements seem very POV. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As you command. I have now added in refs for those statements, and reworded a couple. Woody (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed one statement needing a ref. It's in the lead and was going to check if it was in the article but forgot.
 * "To the surprise of commentators and fans, Saunders quit halfway through the 1981–82 season, after falling out with the chairman, with the club in the quarter-final of the European Cup." Peanut4 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, added in ref. Woody (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * MOS issues
 * There's a mixture of style between sixties and seventies and 1960s, etc. I prefer the latter but will let you choose and amend them all.
 * I notice you've gone for the former, and as long as it's consistent, that's fine. WP:MOSNUM does suggest the latter see "Decades contain no apostrophe (the 1980s, not the 1980’s); the two-digit form is used only where the century is clear (the ’80s or the 80s)." And I do wonder if it might be easier to change to that version, if you need to use 2000s, etc., later on. Peanut4 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Have done. Woody (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think positions lower than ninth, ought to be 10th, etc. Though there is actually use of 15th and 16th later on.
 * semi final and semi-finals
 * Done the sixties and the semis/quarters etc. Can you clarify your thoughts on the numbers? Do you believe that they should all be numerical? Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I reckon first to ninth should be as is, and 10th onwards be numerals. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Some other points
 * I'm not sure of the title and first line particularly "&mdash;present" and "present day", I would prefer onwards and to the current season, otherwise it implies it will be updated each day. Slap me with a wet fish, if I'm being a bit picky here.
 * Some of the sentences seem to be on the short side, not allowing the same natural flow which is present elsewhere.
 * I have reworded the first sentence, though I disagree about the naming. I think it is a perfectly acceptable and representative name. With regards to short sentences, I think it now flows though.Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Think that's it for now. Peanut4 (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your issues in their groups. Thanks for your comments. Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything above has now been addressed or I'm satisfied with. However I have a few more queries regarding the references.
 * "To the surprise of commentators and fans," Saunders quit halfway through the 1981–82 season. The reference doesn't say to the surprise of commentators and fans.
 * "The board had also sold two of Villa's most valuable players" Reference says best. Though perhaps this is a subjective opinion on the actual wording.
 * "Spink went on to make several "world class" saves". Again, though I don't really doubt this casting my memory back, the reference again doesn't say "world class".
 * I think the article could also do with some more images, though I appreciate how hard it can be to lay hands on some copyright-free images. Maybe even just some of those already there a little bigger. It looks very texty at the moment. Peanut4 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added in some more images. The sizing is by default so that it fits all resolutions so I can't really change that. I have also reworded those sentences to fit more accurately with the refs. Woody (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No major problems but the prose needs work. I have left more detailed comments on the article talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done that lot thanks. Woody (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And your next lot. Thanks. Woody (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose on criterion 1a. The main problem is that the article is full of jargon that leaves the non-soccer fan completely perplexed.  To get this up to shape, it needs copyediting by someone who is completely unfamiliar with soccer/football.  I provided some examples below, but this is not an exhaustive list; please have the entire text copyedited.
 * General prose examples:
 * The first sentence is not in an encyclopedic tone. Don't say, "This article is about..."  Just start writing.  For example, "The history of Aston Villa F.C. from 1961 to the current season covers the fluctuating fortunes..."
 * Avoid phrases like "The late sixties saw..." Instead just say, "In the late sixties..."
 * Also, avoid starting sentences with "this" to describe the previous sentence, as in "This started with Villa..." We don't know what "this" is referring to.
 * In the beginning of the Instability section, you introduce Joe Mercer by saying he resigned but we don't know who that is. A manager?  Same with other names there.
 * The point about those names is that they are already covered in the previous history article and by the wikilinks. That is what they (wikilinks) are designed for. The names are all provided in context. If we take this sentence: "the manager Joe Mercer resigned in July 1964. His replacement, Dick Taylor, managed to avoid relegation... and so on" It would be unneccessary and redundant for me to say, his replacement as manager, it is obvious. Woody (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree somewhat. I don't think people should be forced to follow wikilinks to at least get the basic idea of the sentence they are reading - for example, that Mercer was a manager.  True, you don't need to state that every guy was a manager because it follows logically.  But at least one of them should be identified so readers don't have to click links to find out basic information. --Laser brain (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had written in that Mercer was the manager after I read your comment, I just didn't think it neccessary to wikilink those names that followed logically on. Woody (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jargon examples:
 * I have no idea what being "relegated" means although it may be obvious to a soccer fan. Either wikilink it or provide context.  I assume they were relegated to a different league, but a lot of people are totally unfamiliar with that concept since it does not occur in many countries.
 * Two sentences later, we find out they were relegated to the Third Division.. are you talking about the same incident? If so, why two different sentences?
 * "Fell down the table"? --Laser brain (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have amended your jargon examples, though personally, I didn't think wikilinking relegated was strictly neccessary, we are not the simple English Wikipedia. We assume some level of intelligence amongst the readers. Woody (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't suggesting linking to a "definition" of the verb relegate. If, however, there was an article about the process of sports teams being relegated to a lower league (which there is), you could link to that so people could read about it.  As it stood, you said they "were relegated" but that verb is normally followed by a prepositional phrase in everyday use.  For example, "I did a terrible job at investigating crimes, so I was relegated to directing traffic."  Hope that's a bit more clear. --Laser brain (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is what I understood and carried out, I wikilinked the first use of relegated to Promotion and relegation. Woody (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Woody's talk page says he's away for the weekend, back on Monday. Have the opposers been asked to revisit?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I reviewed his fixes of my examples but I don't think the article is ready. I think it still needs treatment by a non-soccer person and a copyedit. --Laser brain (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. This article really needs a good copy edit.. The grammar is v. poor in places. The article is not ready for FA yet. But please do not give up—it's very interesting.--Graham Colm Talk 21:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.