Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester United F.C./archive3


 * 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 by Dabomb87 01:54, 5 April 2010.

Manchester United F.C.

 * Nominator(s): Tomlock01 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently been dramatically improved and has been promoted to GA status. I feel that the article meets all the FA criteria, and is comparable in quality to Manchester City F.C. and Arsenal F.C., both of which are FA. Tomlock01 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. No dab links. Link to http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=4096/newsid=648350.html is dead; http://www.joinmust.org/news/newsletter/UnitedShareholder26.pdf#page=10 does not contain the title it is supposed to lead to. Ucucha 20:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed both.Tomlock01 (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I do not believe that this Featured Article nomination is a good idea right now. I think we should see what results the current Peer Review yields and then bring it to FAC, but not just yet. – PeeJay 20:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PeeJay, I think it meets all the criteria, and surely this process is a form of peer review? Tomlock01 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As you wish. – PeeJay 20:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, sorry. The article does not get anywhere near using the range of sources that would be appropriate for an FA. Only three books are cited, but on this topic, there are obviously going to be many more out there: . I'm therefore not confident that this article represents comprehensive coverage of the subject. Under FA criterion 1(c), the article must be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comments, but I disagree. Arsenal F.C. is probably the most comparable FA, and has only 4 books listed, but in uses just 2 of these in actually providing references, the other 2 being listed simply as 'further reading'. Furthermore, the 3 books listed in the Manchester United article are complete histories, and as such represents comprehensive coverage.Tomlock01 (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Arsenal is probably at risk of de-listing as it was listed a long time ago when criteria were laxer. I understand that the books cited in this article might provide comprehensive histories, but the FA criterion is "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". That's for good reason: even books that cover a topic comprehensively will take different angles and have different focuses. This is a good article, no doubt, but to be the best work of an encylopaedia, I would expect all relevant literature to be consulted. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, with sadness. I've been thinking about this nomination for the last couple of hours; my initial thoughts were that the prose is terrible, and marginal even for GA, but that can be addressed in fairly short order. My real concern having considered it though is in the article's coverage, somewhat mirroring Mkativerata's point above. This club is a global phenomenon, it can't be compared to Arsenal or Manchester City, and that needs to be explored in the article. Also, FAC is not a peer review, and should not be treated as one. I'd recommend that this FAC was withdrawn. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I appreciate your comments. But this article has nothing to lose, and plenty to gain from going through the FAC process.
 * Wikipedia has a chronic shortage of reviewers across the board, and FAC is not the place for a peer review. FAC is about assessing whether an article meets the FA criteria, and this one clearly doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – Considering that there are two opposes already, and the main editor of the article (PeeJay) believes the article isn't ready for FAC, I see no reason why this should continue. I also agree with the previous reviewers about the need for less reliance on online sources, and the need for more on their worldwide popularity—the whole section on their supporters could use some expansion, for that matter. There should at least be something on how they became so popular.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to flog a dead horse. Withdraw with my blessing.Tomlock01 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.