Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sunderland A.F.C./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 by User:SandyGeorgia 17:26, 12 January 2009.

Sunderland A.F.C.

 * Nominator(s): Sunderland06  (talk)

I've been working on this article for a while, it passed its GAC about a month ago. The article has been through three peer reviews, and several copyedits and now, I believe it now meets the FA criteria. I would like to nominate my first featured article candidate. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Support; I read it and loved the prose. However, there are some footnotes which need en dashes (such as numbers one through forty-seven), so I would suggest reviewing those. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments - There's more for me to look at, but this should give you some ideas for polishing the writing further. It's pretty good now, though, and I enjoyed reading it.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 19:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the piped links to English football seasons have hyphens. Recently these links were changed to use en dashes, and I think the piping can be changed here. Not a big deal, but it would set a good example for other club pages. Done - Changed all of them.
 * Early years and league triumphs: Is the bolding necessary here? I can understand the first use, but the second one is just a copy of the bolding in the lead. Done - Debolded club name.
 * "indicating that the clubhad opened membership to all in order to relax financial troubles and increase the pool of players avaliable to it." The words that I struck are usually considered unnecessary here. Done - Removed.
 * Further league championship titles: "When the war ended and the league resumed, Sunderland came close to winning another league championship in the 1922–23 season; when they finished as runners-up behind Liverpool." Semi-colon should be a comma. Done - Changed.
 * Financial troubles and cup success: "Sunderland only needing a draw during their final game against Chelsea, and hoping Chelsea did not beat Portsmouth in their final game of the season." Change needing to needed, and hoping needs a tweak as well. Just reading the sentence will show the problem. Done - Changed.
 * "After spending six seasons in the Second Division, Sunderland were promoted to Division One in the 1975–76 season, they topped the table over Bristol City by three just points." Remove just, and make the second comma a semi-colon. Done - Changed.
 * Recent highs and lows: First, I don't like the section title. What constitutes "recent"? 1992 was a long time ago. "with Sunderland losing 2–0 to Liverpool." This is an example of the "noun-plus-ing" structure, which is often found in FACs. A better option is "as Sunderland lost 2–0 to Liverpool." This also removes some passive voice; active voice is often preferred here. Done - I've moved the header to the following paragraph as they were also in the 1992 FA Cup Final. Changed the wording also.
 * "Sunderland returned to the Premier League as champions in 1999 with a then-record points total of 105." Confusing, because there is no indication that they were in the Premier League before then. Done - Mentioned previous Premier League campaign.
 * Back for more.
 * Inconsistent hyphenation of "then record" in Recent highs and lows. Done - Used hyphen both times.
 * Ref 66 shouldn't have a space after punctuation. Done - Removed comma.
 * Colours and crest: "and also the land the Stadium of Light lies on". Word isn't necessary after and. Also, I'd delink the two stadiums here, seeing as they are linked in the next section, which is about stadiums. Done - Removed word, and delinked stadiums.
 * Stadiums: Change comma after "at Hendon Board School" to a semi-colon. Done
 * Problem sentence: "It was opened on 10 September 1898, and Sunderland played the same day against Liverpool, which Sunderland opened with a win." Done - Reworded.
 * "though albeit in a different language." I thought that albeit meant though; don't think the two next to each other works. Done - Removed although.
 * Supporters and rivalries: "including from; America, Australia, Canada and Ireland." Semi-colon could be a colon. I know I'm being picky on the punctuation, but getting this right really elevates an article. Done - Changed to colon.
 * Don't understand this sentence: "the jury stated it was described as 'like a scene from the film Braveheart' by some." What jury? And the "by some" part should be moved, perhaps to "described by some." Done - Reworded a bit.
 * I'm stopping here for now. I see some other problems in this section, including "Sunderland have number of supporters" and "and costs $3 as 28 November 2008." Also, is Banning Orders commonly capitalized? And "The Sunderland fans were voted as the loudest ground in the 2007–08 season..." needs work. Ealdgyth's source concerns should be addressed as well. Sorry I couldn't finish, but there are only so many issues I'm willing to list at once.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 01:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know if they were missed, but my stopping point showed some problems that haven't been fixed. Maybe I should have made them more explicit.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 21:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you highlight the issues I did not resolve, I will get straight onto them. Sunderland06  (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They're now in italics.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I, at one time, copyedited this article for Sunderland06 and I was already impressed with the quality of the prose. It passes the FA criteria and was an enjoyable read. VX! 23:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * What makes the following sources reliable?
 * http://www.roker-roar.com/pauldays/navbar/index.html
 * Ran by bookwriter Paul Days; whom wrote the Sunderland A.F.C. history book.
 * Leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Paul Days qualifies as a football expert (especially on Sunderland) with his books on the subjects. Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/
 * Listed in WP:FOOTYs list of trustworthy sources.
 * Sources listed under http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Sunderland/Sunderland.htm.
 * Leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I, too, am not confident of this site since their sources also include web sites and blogs. Would it not be better to pick up the three books listed there and find the information?  Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked through what this source was supposed to be citing, and noted that aside from talking the badge, it was used twice to talk about the sponsors of the clubs by noting the period the sponsors appear on the shirts. If this is the source of visual citing asked for, then why not go straight to the primary source at Sunderland's home page (http://www.safc.com/history/?page_id=3051)?  That should suffice for Vaux and Cowies.  The relationship between Cowies and Arriva can be sourced by Sunderland Echo.  If Vady's logo is too small to make out from Sunderland's home page, the company itself mentions its sponsorship here.  Historicalkits.co.uk is not needed for these.  Jappalang (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these, now replaced. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support- a fantastic article and I believe it deserves the status following what it was like before the owner's work on it began. Looking at the sources I can't see anything wrong with them, can't see anything spelling or grammar wise, or any problems at all, it has my support for now unless anyone can address faults to it. Mackemfixer (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments From a read through there are no obvious omissions, with each period in the club's history covered evenly. The sourcing relies heavily on one particular book, but it appears that for a club of their size relatively few books have been published about Sunderland. There a quite a few small issues which are individually minor, but that I'd like to see resolved before I support. I've yet to go over the second half of the history section.
 * Sunderland-based school teacher James Allan started... The reference for the subsequent sentence states that he called a meeting of schoolteachers which resulted in the formation of the club. Does the print reference go into detail which credits him with starting the club? If not, wording like "a meeting of schoolteachers called by James Allan" would be more appropriate. Likewise the web reference does not say anything about increasing the pool of players, is this something from the book? - Done - I've changed this into a book reference. The book specifically states Allen as the club's founder.
 * as professionalism was creeping into the game - implies something insiduous about professionalism. Comment - For some reason, Allan was against the club turning professional, as they were receiving many payments from scottish companies to let their players play at Sunderland, and had just been in trouble after paying their players after an FA cup match with Middlesbrough.
 * Admission to League - I take it this resulted from a vote, with Stoke failing to be re-elected? Comment - Book says we were preffered to Stoke, I'd imagine they had failed to be re-elected.
 * famously declared - A peacock term. Done - Removed famously.
 * There's a bit of redundancy in some of these sentences e.g. However, they returned to the top of the English league in the 1894–95 season as they were crowned champions - There's no need for "English" as Sunderland don't compete in any other league. Finishing top and becoming champions are one and the same. Done - Removed redundancies.
 * Sunderland came close to winning a third successive league championship - six points was a wide margin for a 30 game season under 2 points for a win. Unless there was a late collapse, simply stating that Sunderland finished second would be more neutral. Done
 * Any idea when the club badge was first introduced. In the case of many clubs, no badge was used until the mid-20th century. Additionally, the reference does not support the statement that it was changed in 1972. Comment - No indication of date first badge was introduced, historical kits gives the other badge as 1977.
 * Is a more precise capacity figure for the Stadium of Light available? All seater-stadia are seldom precisely x000 in capacity. Comment - Everywhere I've looked (even the club website) lists the capacity as 49,000 exactly.
 * Its worth mentioning the capacity decreases caused by the Taylor Report as the reason for Roker Park's inadequacy. Done - Mentioned taylor report.
 * The Sunderland fans were voted as the loudest crowd - it was measurements by a decibel meter, not a vote. Done - Changed to recorded.
 * The Supporters section overplays hooliganism. Sunderland aren't particularly known for it, so it shouldn't be one of the very first things mentioned in the section. Done - I've moved the loudest crowd bit to above.
 * Every club has a programme, I don't think there's any need to mention it. Done - Removed. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose until the prose and linking is smoother. The lead alone provides plenty of fodder for comment:
 * Is it Sunderland or the FC that competes in the League? "Sunderland Association Football Club is a professional association football club based in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, England, which competes in the Premier League." Try "..., England, that competes ...". Done - Changed to that.
 * Remove comma after "titles". Done - Comma removed.
 * "They" at the start of the second para is off-putting. Perhaps "The Club were elected"? Done - Changed to The club.
 * It's a messy half blue at the opening. Are readers really going to sit there are divert to all of those "Year in English football" articles before they read the rest? I don't think so. And won't most of them think the year-links are just that—links to solitary year articles? Why not (1) improve the appearance and readability at the opening, (2) make the links explicit, and (3) reduce the dilution of the other links, like this: Done - Changed to that.

"Sunderland Association Football Club is a professional association football club based in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, England, which competes in the Premier League. Sunderland have won six First Division titles, in 1892, 1893, 1895, 1902, 1913, and most recently in 1936 (see Years in English football)."

Instead of this:

"Sunderland Association Football Club is a professional association football club based in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, England, which competes in the Premier League. Sunderland have won six First Division titles, in 1892, 1893, 1895, 1902, 1913, and most recently in 1936."

Remember that there's a prominent navbox at the top of each Year in English football article. Year-in-X links can also be placed in the "See also" section, with more helpful information as you please that would otherwise clutter the main text.

Try to locate a sports editor who is unfamiliar with this article, for a good massage of the entire text.
 * "The club won their first FA Cup in 1937"—You've linked the solitary year again, but this time it's to FA Cup in 1937. Why not pipe the whole group? Be explicit, where it's reasonably brief. See MOSLINK. I think there's a case for the 1973 FA Cup link to be in the "See also" section rather than in the lead. Done - Removed link altogether, mentioned later on in article.
 * Clunky sentence: "The club's home stadium is the Stadium of Light, an all-seater stadium with a capacity of 49,000 into which they moved in 1997 after leaving Roker Park in order to increase ground attendances." You know how I love " in order to". "stadium ... Stadium ... stadium". Needs to be split by a semicolon or period. The 49,000 thing is revisited only four seconds later; readers will be irritated. Done - Removed first mention of 49,000. Tony   (talk)  08:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "It is commonly likened to Benfica's Estádio da Luz, which translates into English as "Stadium of Light"." Why not "It is commonly likened to Benfica's Estádio da Luz ("Stadium of Light")." And where the f... is it? Rio? Madrid? Who is Benfica? Done - Changed and added Lisbon, Portugal. Tony   (talk)  08:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support A good, thorough article. Minor tweaks of the prose that might be needed are just that. The JPS talk to me  17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Image review I worked a bit on the images and they now past muster. All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rejoinder—My examples above were from the lead only, to demonstrate that the writing throughout needs serious attention. Tony   (talk)  15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Comment just starting to massage the prose now. Please revert any changes in meaning I inadvertently introduce. Not too bad but I will fine-tune straightforward ones. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * and their performance [in the previous season] led The Times to describe them as "a wonderfully fine team" - my sense is the bracketed bit is redundant. Can the author confirm? Done - Removed redundancy.


 * "Mackems" is sorta sprung on readers in Financial troubles and cup success section without being explained. I'd settle for it being mentioned in lead but it isn't there. Done - Changed to "club"


 * The bit on the Friendship trophy looks odd stuck there way down the bottom. I think it would go better after the other rivalry info in the main text. Comment - The reason it is under the honours is because it is an actual trophy. It does not have its own article, so needs a little further explainling.


 * One last thing, there should be a space between the p ad the number in all the book refs. I'd do it myself but I need to sleep now. Nearly there :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - Added all the spaces, and thank you very much for the copyedit. :)

I placed italics for the unresolved issues above, like you asked. Don't know if my initial message was missed up there, but I didn't want to take any chances. Read them carefully and the problems will become clear.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 22:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying, I resolved the issues and just forgot to reply above. Sunderland06  (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of them were still not done, but I took care of them myself, along with a few other tweaks. Here is my final round, at last. Have to get moving here, because this is the second-oldest FAC up at the moment. Normally I keep my posts together, but I'm putting this at the bottom so it doesn't get missed.
 * Statistics and records: "with Bobby Gurney being the record goalscorer...". Noun-plus-ing structure, which is more common for candidates than I originally thought. Try a semi-colon, then "Bobby Gurney is the record goalscorer...". Done
 * "making 36 appearances for Republic of Ireland." Perhaps "for the Republic of Ireland." Done - Added the.
 * The two transfer fee amounts need non-breaking spaces between the pound amount and million, like this: $5.6 million. The edit screen shows the correct formatting, with the exception that us Americans have dollar signs on our keyboards. Another one is needed in Sponsorship. Done
 * Nicknames: Change the semi-colon in the second sentence to a colon, perhaps? Done  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 16:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This was previously done, but was commented again in Graham Colm's concerns. So I'm not sure which version should remain. Sunderland06  (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is no big deal. I am happy to let the nominator decide. Graham Colm Talk 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Oppose- the prose is still not of FA standard. The section on stadiums is well-written but the efforts of, I guess, other writers spoils the article. Here are some examples: think the whole article would benefit from a fresh editor giving it a thorough edit. Graham Colm Talk 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but these are just examples, please see the edits I made to the article a few moments ago for more, and this: By the 1990s, the stadium was no longer large enough, and with no room for possible expansion, the Taylor Report had also brought new regulations into football stadiums, so Roker Park's capacity was continually decreased. - Is  a common problem in the article. The reader has to know that the report called for all-seater stadiums. Without knowing this the reader gets lost. And, why "also", who else brought in new regulations? And, "so" is a very weak word. Graham Colm Talk 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The club's home stadium is the Stadium of Light, an all-seater stadium into which they moved in 1997 - why not "which they moved to in 1997"? Done - Changed.
 *  ...leaving Roker Park to increase ground attendances.  - something odd here, capacity? Done - Changed.
 * relax financial troubles - "relieve" ? Done - Changed to relieve.
 * after a 7–2 win against Aston Villa at Perry Barr - can you confirm this was at Perry Barr and not Aston? These are neighboring districts of Birmingham. Was there a football ground in Perry Barr at the time? Comment - Perry Barr was Aston Villa's ground from 1876 to 1897 as mentioned in Aston Villa F.C..
 * This occurred when they won their match against Middlesbrough, which meant they finished in fifteenth place - "and they finished in.." Done - Changed.
 * Both Sunderland and Norwich were relegated in the same season of appearing in the League Cup Final. - "they appeared", but still confusing. Done - Changed a bit.
 * Swindon's victory was revoked after being found guilty of financial irregularities and Sunderland were instead promoted - how can a victory be found guilty? Comment - Changed to promotion.
 * The club has many different supporters groups, including from: the United States, Australia, Canada and Ireland. - no colon is needed. Done - Removed colon.
 * Raine's "Eye Plan" of c.1785–90 shows two of the (ultimately four) gun batteries on the south side of the Wear which guarded the rivermouth during the Napoleonic wars- this comes completely out of the blue, the writers assumes everyone knows what Raine's Eye Plan is - I don't. Done - Reworded.
 * I've tweaked this part around. Sunderland06  (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I've gone over the article before. The language has a few problems, but these get tweaked over time (sometimes good, sometimes bad). The major structure flows well. The images seem fine. The language might not be to everyone's taste, but I helped go through somethings with Sunderland directly, so I am currently satisfied for now. I would like to see a few more satisfied (especially Graham), but this is a support as per AGF that Sunderland is working hard to accomplish that task. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point w.r.t. AGF is a valid one. Although, FAC is not meant to be Peer Review, I am willing to copy edit the article tomorrow afternoon, (GMT), if Sunderland is happy about this, I think the article needs about another two hours of work. I think Sunderland can't see the wood for the trees, (this is a compliment of sorts ;-). Graham. Graham Colm Talk 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Graham, your kindness and dedication to FAC is astounding. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed to support. Graham Colm Talk 18:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Concerned about the ongoing prose concerns, but more, the unstruck reliable sources concerns. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Scouring the net and the history book tonight. Sunderland06  (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've changed all The Stat Cat references into different sources. Sunderland06  (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The table of managers appears to breach MOS:ICON. Struway2 (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed templates to include country name with flag. Sunderland06  (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Comments as follows:

On the whole, a very good read for a football subject, but with the above niggles. Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get to this in the afternoon, thanks for the review, and a also a huge thanks to Graham for his copyedits. Sunderland06  (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One last issue: as have been said earlier, but seems to have been overlooked, there are still violations of MOS:FLAG. It is not clear to me why flag icons are used in the Infobox.  For the player list (which should have been the one doing this instead of the manager's list, now axed), the flags do not have the names next to them.  Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now removed the flags from the infobox and player list.
 * If anyone tries to bring back the flags, please do refer them to MOS:FLAG. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With the resolution of the above issues, I believe we have a general, concise, and comprehensive article of a football club. The ideas conveyed by the language flow smoother than at the start of the FAC.  I think all issues (including sources) have been resolved and this article is worthy to be of featured status.  Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have forgotten to completely review the lede in my judgment. To make up for this, I have copyedited it to what I think would have rectified my possible issues with it (scattered ideas, awkwardness of certain thoughts in certain places, etc).  Jappalang (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Status - the prose issues seem to have been resolved, but there is still one problem with a source. I think it would be a good idea to invite reviewers with unstruck comments to revisit the FAC. Graham Colm Talk 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've contacted Oldelpaso, Giants2008 and Tony1, I'll get round to the source tomorrow evening as I'm heading of to sleep. Sunderland06  (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is now done with sources provided by Jappalang.

Comment (sorry I didn't notice this sooner) in the Colours and crest section, the first mention of a ship is when you say it's "still included". For the benefit of those who can't see it in the image, could you add a bit more detail to (presumably?) the "upper part of the Sunderland coat of arms", and perhaps clarify it as the coat of arms of the city of Sunderland. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Struway2 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've cleared this up now, cheers. Sunderland06  (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not happy - To be honest, I'm quite disappointed with a few things that I'm seeing, even after heavy copy-editing.
 * The parenthetical Years in English football link looks like an afterthought. Also, what is the method of deciding which year gets linked? Tony1 has done more than anyone here, except Sandy, to raise standards across the board, but I don't think this is one of his best ideas. I prefer his idea of placing such links in a See also section; while I'm not a big fan of See also sections in general, I feel that is a better way. I understand if you don't want to go against Tony, but that's just my opinion.
 * Why do some clubs have F.C. at the end and not others? Actually, I don't think much of the F.C.s and believe that they can be dropped.
 * Major tense problems. Just in the lead, I see "Sunderland Association Football Club is", "Sunderland have", "Sunderland were", and "Sunderland's only major triumph after the Second World War was its". Is Sunderland singular or plural? The recent Liverpool F.C. FAC was derailed by this issue, and I see parellels here.
 * Financial troubles and cup success: "At the end of the decade, they were again relegated to the Second Division after finishing 21st ." Number ends this sentence, which isn't even the main problem; the space before the period is.
 * Further league championship titles: "The club escaped relegation from the First Division by one point in the 1927–28 season despite 35 goals from Dave Halliday." Sounds like those 35 goals were the only thing that saved the team, so why is "despite" used?
 * Early years and league triumphs: "After winning the English League Championship, Sunderland played against Heart of Midlothian F.C., the champions of the Scotish League." Please tell me that "Scotish" is British English.
 * No it isn't - it's a typo, probably mine. Graham Colm Talk

After seeing problems like this after the amount of work that has been done here, it leads me to believe that this still needs more time. Therefore, I'm going to oppose. Sorry, but I have to call them like I see them, and I don't think it's ready to be promoted now. If this gets archived, a few more weeks should be enough to polish the article sufficiently.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "Major tense issues", please note that British English allows the use of singular and plural contructions for a proper noun such as companies, organizations, and football clubs.(British Council, American and British English differences) In general, there is not so much a constant tense to be called for, but a rendering based on the context that the subject is to be expressed in.  To expect "Sunderland" or "Sunderland A.F.C." to be only referred to as either singular, or plural in a British English article could be an erroneous expectation.  Jappalang (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

About the flags, they are being adding back into the squad list as they do not violate the specific manual of style for squad lists. However, they should still not be used in the infobox, just clearing this up. Sunderland06 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not supercede the requirement for the country names on first use of the flags. As previously stated, if the flags are wanted in the player list, then the countries have to be named beside the flags.  Jappalang (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking a second look at the article, I find myself agreeing with Giants2008, and have to go with a reluctant Oppose. It is getting close to FA standard. It is incrementally improving, and has improved over the course of this FAC, but there are still sufficient rough edges to make me think that more time to refine it is required than an FAC usually grants. There's still an element of proseline, and there are frequent abrupt changes of subject between sentences, which could have better flow. In terms of things other than prose, I think the Supporters and rivalries section needs a bit of an overhaul. Sunderland are a well-supported club who have maintained their support through lean times, but not a global "big name" like Arsenal or Real Madrid. Their support is consequently located primarily in north-east England, but the section doesn't really give that impression. Unless I'm mistaken, the Tyne-Wear derby is a much bigger deal than matches against Middlesbrough, and this should be reflected in the text. The part about Sunderland Albion is certainly interesting, but should not have a larger portion of the section than more enduring rivalries. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Regarding the captaincy and vice captaincy in the squad list: The Kieran Richardson article says "He has captained Sunderland on occasion, when regular captain Dean Whitehead has not started the match." So is Richardson or Whitehead the captain? Also is there such a position as "vice-captain" and are you able to provide a source for Andy Reid being given this position? --Jameboy (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't actually find a source for who is the club's captain and vice captain. I think it is Dean Whitehead, but can't be sure, Kieran Richardson was also captain while Whitehead was injured. I think it might be worth just removing the captain and vice captain parts from the list altogether. Sunderland06  (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Not trying to rub it in, but we can't have this many issues up top after so much has been done. Done - Changed to had. I understand this FAC probably won't pass at the moment. I feel a lot of improvements have been made, but should've been done at peer review really. However, I'll keep sticking in at this article, and renominate it in the future. Cheers for all the help. Sunderland06 (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "As of 2009, it is competing in the Premier League." "As of" implies that this is and has been subject to change at a high frequency. Have they changed leagues all that often? Comment - Over the last 10 years they've changed leagues quite frequently, and only rejoined the Premier League in 07-08.
 * "Sunderland performed well in the league, earning them plaudits such as a "wonderfully fine team"" Done - Removed them.
 * "However, their achievements petered out, and in 1958, they were relegated. " Sounds like the achievements were relegated. Change "they" to "the club". Done - Changed.
 * "Their stay in the top flight was a record 68 successive seasons" Jargon in the lead (top flight) is not helpful, maybe it is a regional variant but stay as clear as possible. Why does the sentence use the passive? Try: "They stayed in the top league for a record 68 successive seasons". Done - Changed.
 * "Sunderland's only major triumph after the Second World War was its second FA Cup in 1973" Is there such thing as a "minor triumph" (in this context)? Done - Simply triumph now.
 * "when the club secured a 1–0 victory over Leeds United, due to a goal scored by Ian Porterfield." The comma after "United" is not really necessary and disrupts flow. Done - Removed comma.
 * " Based in the same region, Sunderland has a long-standing rivalry with its neighbour Newcastle United, both contesting the Tyne-Wear derby since 1898." "neighbour" tells us all that we need to know. Done - Removed.
 * "Sunderland-based schoolteacher James Allan founded the Sunderland & District Teachers Association Football Club" I don't quite see the purpose of bolding down here, it is kind of distracting. Done - Removed bold.
 * "He founded Sunderland Albion, and the two Sunderland clubs had a rivalry" Almost sounds like they had children, change "had"-->formed, or something like that. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the lede, it was my fault, really (see my comments above). Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Spot-checks in one small section reveal significant prose issues. I've given hints below as to how to overcome these. I think this one should be withdrawn and resubmitted after at least a few weeks; then it should go through without too much trouble. Reviewers have been put to far too much work here, and basic problems remain.
 * "Found guilty of making additional payments to players in excess of the maximum wage"—I may be wrong, but do we need both "additional" and "in excess of"?
 * I can't remember, but if you've chosen plural for "club", I suppose I can swallow it, but ... "the club were"? Uncomfortable; yes, I see you have used plural. Hmmmm.
 * Clunky order: "Sunderland required only a draw for their final game against promotion rivals Chelsea, who had another game left to play after this match, to secure promotion." Why not "To secure promotion, Sunderland required only a draw in their final game against promotion rivals Chelsea, who had another game left to play after this match." Have I got it right? Is "in" right?
 * It goes straight on to say "However, they were defeated"—which team is "they"? Hey, this is basic: you really need to go through all text to zap these back-reference problems. It's an easy class of issue to do housecleaning on, because you simply hop from pronoun to pronoun, and from "this" to "this", etc.
 * "to clinch promotion" twice in five seconds. Go through and identify the close reps—that's another simple task.
 * More clunky sentence structure and punctuation: "Montgomery's feat is often described as the most famous save, in an FA Cup Final, of all time." The commas wreck it. Why not "Montgomery's feat is often described as the most famous save of all time in an FA Cup Final."? That way, this habit of separating bits that desperately want to be together in the sentence is overcome, as well as the bump-bumpety-bump ironed out.
 * Clunky: "Sunderland, a Second Division club at the time, won the game, mostly due to the efforts of their goalkeeper Jimmy Montgomery; he saved in quick succession two of Peter Lorimer's shots at goal." How about "Sunderland, a Second Division club at the time, won the game; this was mostly due to the efforts of their goalkeeper Jimmy Montgomery, who saved two of Peter Lorimer's shots at goal in quick succession." Does one not say "at the goal"? Have an eye for recasting the boundaries between sentences and clauses, with periods and semicolons, to give readers a more even run in length and complexity. The last bit was stubby, the first was awkward in length and arrangement.

Not yet of a professional standard. Sorry. Tony  (talk)  13:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Two much work? (yes, spelling intentional, just for you ;) ) I thought reviewers did this for pleasure, just like everyone else? If they don't wish to collaborate then they are under no obligation. I must say, looking above, it seems some have been exceptional: GrahamColm appears to have been especially helpful, putting his money where his mouth is by actually doing some work. The JPS talk to me  17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is nice when reviewers help out. However, they are under no obligation to do so; the purpose of this process is to determine whether the article in question is ready to be promoted. FAC is meant for fine-tuning, it is not a build-a-Featured-Article service. Our reviewer resources are stretched thin. I review for pleasure also, but I don't want to turn the FAC into a peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I realise now this article was not ready to be submitted. Most of this stuff should have came up at peer review, and I'd be happy to withdraw this and resubmit it in a couple of weeks. Sunderland06 (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing; please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the FAC template in place until the bot goes through. Hope to see you back soon! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.