Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leicester City F.C./archive1

Leicester City F.C.
This article was a mess up until recently but I submitted it for a Peer Review and have address all the issues as far as I am aware. Tried to model it on the Arsenal F.C. article. I have rewritten large chunks so it is mostly a self nom. Jimmmmmmmmm 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The article appears to be well written, but I have a number of concerns that I believe should be addressed before I make a definite decision. Firstly you will need to add in a lot more references, as well as convert all of your references to the one style of footnotes (there are a few wayward ones under "Colours, Crest and Traditions." Secondly in the article you make a lot of claims that are unsubstantiated such as "the obvious inclusion of seats after the Hillsborough disaster." Perhaps with that example you could change the way you say that to "the cumpolsory shift towards an all-seater stadium" or something to that effect, or just references it. But what is most concerning is that there quite a number of errors in grammar and punctuation. I suggest you read over the article at least twice and fix both them and colloquialisms. Other than that I'm happy! --mdmanser 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Right think I have addressed the reference problem, and the Hillsborough one. On the grammar etc, I have copied this to word and no grammar errors are visible. As I pretty much wrote this article I fail to see how I'm gonna spot them. Maybe you could point them out. Much apprieciated. Jimmmmmmmmm 23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - this article is still currently listed in Peer Review at this moment in time; it could do with a little more time to iron out any remaining issues. Qwghlm 00:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this still in Peer Review? Would have thought it would have dropped out by now it's been there for two weeks with no new comment. Needs moving along. I understand you Qwghlm may not have time yourself but nobody has reviewed this article since your initial one about 2 weeks ago. Maybe I was a bit quick coming here but it won't get done otherwise. Jimmmmmmmmm 07:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It can wait a few more weeks; the article has gone under a massive rewrite and a period of time to stabilise it, iron out any awkward bits is usually preferable. I don't see why there needs to be a rush. Qwghlm 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just not very patient. Jimmmmmmmmm 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Object Generally good, but not FA level yet.
 * Several areas need copyediting and spellchecking. A lot of the history consists of sentences in the form under the management of x the club did y or similar. I'll run through the prose myself at some point, but major work is needed.
 * I find it surprising that the club's two major trophy wins have only a single sentence between them.
 * As mentioned above, references are fairly sparse. Claims such as This change was unpopular, and dropped at the end of the season ("Colours" section) should be cited. Referencing should be in a consistent style, preferably the Cite.php format.
 * The lead mentions rivalries with other clubs, but these are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Oldelpaso 18:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Object—1a; poorly written, incl. stubby paragraphs. Why is it abbreviated in the title (F dot C dot), and spelt out at the start of the main text? Tony 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Presumably because the common name uses "F.C." and the full name spells out the abbreviation. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony Firstly, Arsenal is a featured article and it's Arsenal F.C. so that should be a problem and the paragraph are not stubby there might be one, but thats it. Your too picky. Jimmmmmmmmm 14:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jim, I honestly can't decipher what you mean. Please rewrite your response so that it's intelligible. I queried F.C. because I found it strange to abbreviate in the title, but I accept that this is a well-known title. I'm very picky, but not "too" picky. Please read the FA Criteria and the instructions at the top of this page. Tony 15:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - the mixture of inline and footer references needs fixing. BlueValour 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)