Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester United F.C./archive5


 * 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 16:04, 27 July 2010.

Manchester United F.C.

 * Nominator(s): – PeeJay 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC), Tom (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because we believe that, at last, it finally meets the Featured Article criteria. The prose is engaging and the content of the article does not neglect any major aspects of the subject. The article has over 150 individual references, both to print sources and web-based sources, all of which are reliable and listed in a consistent fashion. The article is both neutral and stable (aside from the vandalism that naturally affects such a high-profile subject). The lead section covers the entire scope of the article succinctly, and the content of the article is organised into appropriate hierarchical sections. All of the images are either free or used under a valid claim of Fair Use. Finally, none of the content is explored in unnecessary detail, and appropriate weight is given to events past and present. I hope you will agree with both me and Tom that the article is worthy of FA status. – PeeJay 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has also had a thorough peer review, and several copyedits. Thanks to Malleus and Casliber for this. Tom (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Given my antipathy towards the subject matter, I don't take the decision to support lightly. All issues I had with the article were dealt with at one or other of the previous two peer reviews, and I now think it is ready for FA. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Simon, both for the support and and your numerous reviews; much appreciated. Tom (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – This article has had a truly staggering amount of work done on it recently. It has taken a lot of collaboration from many contributors, and I didn't think we'd ever get here, but I now agree that it deserves to be promoted. After a thorough look through it, I have no gripes at all, which is quite something. Even now, I constantly find problems in my own Featured work. I can only say very well done to Tom and PeeJay. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 14:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I must defer my share of that praise to Tom. He did most of the work. – PeeJay 14:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Modest to the last I see, boet! ;) – Cliftonian the orangey bit 14:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - dab link to Champions League, multiple redirecting external links but none dead - see here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the dablink and the majority of the redirecting external links. Unfortunately, I don't think the BBC ones are correctable as I believe the site uses different URLs for UK and international readers; the links we use are the UK versions, so I assume the linkchecker is being redirected to the international link. – PeeJay 14:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think redirected links should be considered a problem; what counts is whether the links go where it needs to go. Ucucha 17:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I was very critical of this article at its last FAC, which I thought was premature, but all my concerns then have been dealt with. I think this is now a great piece of work worthy of the bronze star. Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers Malleus. Tom (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look good, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian. Tom (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

media Why is it asserted that File:Manchester_United_Badge_1960s-1973.png crosses the threshold of originality? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is that asserted? – PeeJay 21:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Manchester_United_Badge_1960s-1973.png
 * Nope, I'm still not seeing it. You'll have to be more explicit about your objection. Not all of us are experts when it comes to Fair Use. – PeeJay 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The file File:Manchester_United_Badge_1960s-1973.png consists of various components, including the Free File:Manchester_city_coa.png, the free Red Rose of Lancaster, some free uncopyrightable text. Yet the image is used under fair use as it is asserted that someone owns the copyright, and I was interested as to what in this image makes it copyrigthtable? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I thought you were complaining that the image was being described as free when it shouldn't be, not the other way around! Erm, you could be right that the image is not copyrightable. In fact, that was the whole point behind adding the devil to the badge in the late 1960s. We'll have to ask User:Decorativeedison for help on that one, since he uploaded it in the first place. Unfortunately, he only seems to edit here sporadically, so I don't know how long it'd take for him to respond. – PeeJay 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An alternative forum may be Media copyright questions Fasach Nua (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pending confirmation of license Fasach Nua (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry this took me so long. I have started a discussion regarding the 1960s-1970s badge here. – PeeJay 13:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Jappalang has determined that the ship in the badge is too similar to the one in the City of Manchester coat of arms, so the image is definitely copyrightable and not free. Shame. – PeeJay 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Apparently we can claim it as a free image after all! My bad! – PeeJay 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:FA Criteria 3 met, Although I would suspect that there are better pictures of Ryan Giggs available, the current one is mainly grass, and he looks to be trying to get out of it, but I'll leave that as an editorial decision Fasach Nua (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Man Utd FC .svg is in a lossless format, the image should be in a lossy format, and the image quality should be the minimum required for the stated purpose Fasach Nua (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is now in a lossy format. – PeeJay 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Albeit it is a bit on the long side, but hopefully it will not grow further. Sandman888 (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we'll have to add a section on next season's Treble, but other than that I think its as long as it will get. Thanks for the support. Tom (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment In my humble opinion, it would be good to add this photo of the Bubsy babes in the chapter "Busby years (1945–1969)", I find it's better than the one with the plaque, isn't it? Overall, they made the history of the club and such ancient images are pretty rare, so better to use the ones we have. Bye. --87.6.119.32 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Image added. – PeeJay 20:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved from the last FAC, which I opposed quite vehemently. Big  Dom  17:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support based on Criterion 1a, the prose flows well and the article is engaging. I can hear only one voice in my head when I read it, unlike in earlier versions when a crowd seemed to be talking. I suggest swapping the positions of the graph and the photograph of the 1905 team just for aesthetic reasons. It would be great to see this contribution on the Main Page. Graham Colm (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I might agree about rearranging the images, but I believe it is preferred for the subjects of photos to be looking towards the text. If I swap the photo of the 1905 team with the graph, the team will be looking away from the text. Do you still think I should change it? – PeeJay 09:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not that important, but as it's a group photograph, and the team seems to be looking in more than one direction, I don't think the "rule" applies here. Graham Colm (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I would also say that, as things stand, the team photo relates to the paragraph next to it, but it wouldn't if it was moved, so I think I'll leave this and wait to see if anyone else comments. Nevertheless, thanks for your support! – PeeJay 14:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome :-) Graham Colm (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments after a quick read:
 * The lede lists MUFC as the joint record holder of 18 league titles, but this is not stated anywhere in the main body. This is a recent bone of contention in the MUFC-Liverpool (the other joint holder) rivalry, and it is surprising to see it left out (and a violation of WP:LEDE, introducing information not found in the main text as well).
 * WP:LEDE says that specific facts can appear in the lead doesn't it? I can't think of a good place to put this information in the main body. Any suggestions? Tom (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we mention it in the "History" section after the mention of the 2008-09 league title. Or maybe we could add a little prose to the "Honours" section? – PeeJay 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I was thinking we might be able to put it in the Honours section, but didn't think about adding prose. I think thats the best option. Tom (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is now done. Tom (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Rivalry section states three rivalries, but describes only two of them; the derby rivalry is ignored...? Several books have documented this; note especially British Sport: A Bibliography to 2000 : Local Histories, on which p. 89 states three possible sources on the City-United rivalry, in particular M. Heatley's Manchester City Versus Manchester United: A Complete History of the Fixture (Shepperton: Dial House, 1996), 160pp.
 * To be honest, I didn't explain the Manchester derby on purpose. I thought it was worth adding a few lines about the Liverpool and Leeds rivalries, because people might ask 'why is there a rivalry between these teams', but for the Manchester derby, its fairly self explanatory; both teams are in Manchester, hence the rivalry. I'll add a bit in about the City rivalry though if you think its a good idea. Tom (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually think this would be a good idea. The rivalry is self-explanatory, I agree, but a short mention of one or two of the biggest matches between the two may be appropriate. – PeeJay 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okidoki. Tom (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

These two are what I think should be addressed for this current revision. I have other thoughts as well, but I think they can be used as future improvements (after FAC or not) instead; see the FAC's talk page. Jappalang (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your other comments, I've had a look at them and agree that they can be used as future improvements. Tom (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

MOS violation (not the nominators' fault):
 * The article is not compliant with Manual of Style (icons). The first use of a country should be accompanied by the country's name.  In this case, the First team list should reflect the names of the nations besides the flags.  I recall seeing that this has been a bone of contention for quite long and should have been easily resolved, but...
 * Anyway, I have proposed a change to that should rectify this issue.  See Template talk:Football squad player.  If this change is not enacted, then likely most football team or match articles would be violating the MOS.  Jappalang (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, the change has been implemented. There should no longer be any argument that it is impossible to comply with MOS's "country names with first use of a flag" in these football squad lists.  Use "icononly=yes" in repeated flags to eliminate the country name if desired.  Jappalang (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The change was reverted because WP:FOOTY members and an admin think it was ugly. A Request for Comments (Template talk:Football squad player) has been raised.  Jappalang (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be very unhappy to see an article pass FA that does not have this problem remedied, even if the change to the template was reverted is out of the nominator's hands. It might be worth considering developing a different way of presenting the squad list in this article so that it includes the necessary information; be it a new template based on the old one with modifications added, or a completely new table based on those in other sports. Knepflerle (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments I haven't looked at the article before, & generally it is very readable & seems pretty good.
 * I don't like the string of four one sentence sections at the end of the "Players" section, & suspect the MOS has something to say about this somewhere. I do like the link to the category though. Can't these be combined into a sentence or two, though keeping the full names of the linked sub-articles?  A touch of "self-reference" would be acceptable here.
 * I agree. I'm thinking we should re-add the top 10 appearance makers and top 10 goalscorers to the "Player records" section and a little prose to the "Reserves and academy" section, and move the links from the other two stub sections to the top of the "Players" section. – PeeJay 22:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree about the string of four one sentence sections, but I don't really like the idea of adding back the top 10 appearance makers and goalscorers. Sadly, I can't think of any other ways of improving this section.Tom (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggested the re-addition of the appearances and goals records because I felt it was a succinct enough summary of the main records and statistics article. – PeeJay 22:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Manchester United has also consistently enjoyed the highest commercial income of any English club; in 2005–06, the club's commercial arm generated £51 million, compared to £42.5 million at Chelsea ..." obviously in the usual sense all the club's activities are "commercial". Presumably this means profits on activities other than ticket & tv rights sales, but this should be explained, and figures for the "sporting" side would be nice.
 * Exact figures regarding the club's income from TV money or merchandising are hard to come by. I could probably get hold of prize money figures from competitions like the FA Cup or the Champions League, but the Premier League and the Football League Cup aren't exactly forthcoming about their prizes. – PeeJay 15:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is still a UK limited company, so turnover and profit, at the least, must be filed at Companies House, and are reported in the media. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * More figures for the club as a business should be easily obtainable: total turnover, profits, players wage bill would be nice. At the moment the "finances" section only covers debt and interest. Also how much do season tickets cost; are they easy to get, etc?
 * The players wage bill would be extremely difficult to get hold of nowadays. I think it was probably included in the pre-Glazer financial reports, but since the Glazers took over they haven't had to release any reports and the old ones have been taken down. – PeeJay 15:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The unpopularity of the club with non-supporters is mentioned, but I missed anything on the typical feeling that too much of the MU support is from non-locals, including (gasp) southerners, and those without the proper commitment to football demonstrated by turning out to watch your team consistently lose in the rain etc. All very subjective of course, but such widely-held feelings should not be too hard to reference.
 * Whatever the reference says, is it really at all likely that "the rivalry with Leeds United has its origins in the Wars of the Roses fought between the House of Lancaster and the House of York"? I think not. The nickname refers to it, but that's about it. Johnbod (talk)
 * I can't think of any other reason why United and Leeds would have developed a rivalry. They were both successful in the 1960s, true, but I think the fact that one is from Lancs and the other from Yorks is a bigger factor. – PeeJay 10:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you really think it all goes back to disputes in the 1400s within a London-based family?? Johnbod (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of the roots of the animosity between Lancashire and Yorkshire, yes. – PeeJay 10:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments –
 * "Alex Ferguson has been manager since 6 November 1986, the most successful manager in the club's history, having won 26 major honours." Something feels off with this sentence. Perhaps "Alex Ferguson, who has been manager since 6 November 1986, is the most successful..." is better? Note that I still don't like the repetition of "manager" that would happen with such a change.
 * Done.
 * Early years: "Following the death of the clubs principle benefactor". "clubs" → "club's".
 * Done.
 * Global brand: "Additionally, Manchester United-branded media services ... has allowed...". "has" → "have". That becomes clearer if you ignore the part I cut out.
 * Done.
 * Sponsorship: "until the end of the of 1999–2000 season".
 * Done.
 * "American insurance corporation AIG agreed a...". Missing "to" before "a"? Or do they not use it in British English?
 * Seems to read OK to me. Must just be a quirk of BrEn.
 * Ownership and finances: "but was saved by James W. Gibson in December 1931 who assumed control of the club after investing $2000." Should "in December 1931" be moved to before Gibson's name? The order would seem to be better that way.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And done. Thanks Giants! – PeeJay 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – I will admit to being quite surprised that there was so much early support, knowing that the previous FACs were not smooth. As soon as I started reading, though, I understood why. A truly refined piece of work, which is often difficult to say for a topic of such general interest as this one. I only hope that the template issue above doesn't end up derailing this FAC. It would be an injustice if an article as strong as this one was denied FA status because of a bunch of flags that the nominator can't do anything about.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 23:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Support I normally refrain from FAC, as by my own admission I am no good at judging 1(a). But on all other counts this fits the bill; it's well written, well illustrated and referenced, and achieves what I thought would be the impossible act of giving appropriate weight to each part of the history.
 * Comments: The article is basing one piece of information on Forbes' studies: "Manchester United is a global brand valued by Forbes magazine at $285 million."  This is now seemingly heavily outdated.  Forbes has released its latest report, valuing the club at US$1.84 billion.  Jappalang (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the $285 million figure is Forbes' valuation of the Manchester United brand, whereas the $1.84 billion figure is their valuation of the company. The distinction between the two is not always that obvious, but I think it's made clear enough in the article. – PeeJay 10:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the $285 million figure is the value of just the brand and associated intellectual property, i.e. that is the price the club would have to pay it were to have to licence the brand from a third party. Tom (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. Jappalang (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For disclosure I should make two things clear. One, I am right at the heart of attempts to alter the template, as can be seen here. But two, it is important that a decision on this article's MoS compliance is taken in context of the ongoing RfC (linked above), which I believe will produce a definitive conclusion. In the unlikely but feasible scenario that there is consensus to WP:IAR, there is no MoS violation, as the MoS allows for such things. In the more likely event that there is consensus to change the template, MoS compliance will be achieved. Provided that discussion on that page continues to be constructive, I see the current state of the template as a moot point. --WFC-- 12:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Considerably redacted and clarified per a constructive discussion at my talk page
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.