Wikipedia:Featured article review/Norwich City F.C./archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC) [1].

Norwich City F.C.[edit]

Notified: The Rambling Man, Dweller, CanaryOJ, Joseph2302, Mattythewhite, ZakNelson1995, Screech123, C.Fred, WP Football, WP England, WP East Anglia, WP Football/England task force, noticed in April

Has good bones, but needs a bit of a makeover. The ownership section contains significant uncited text, and disjointedly ends with the prior chairman. The Statistics and records also contains a fair proportion of uncited text, there's an empty section ("Development squad"), as well as uncited lists and tables (players of the season, out on loan, etc.) Also an internal contradiction - the lead claims "The fans' song "On the Ball, City" is the oldest football chant in the world, written in 1890 and still sung today", while the body qualifies this as chant in use and says it was written in the 1890s, not specifically 1890. Sourcing may also need to be checked in places - "Another photograph, taken on a match day that same season, shows that despite the era's limited car ownership, a parking area was provided at the ground" contains minor original research as this is just a photo of cars parked, and says nothing about car ownership of the time frame. Hog Farm Talk 13:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I think this is probably fixable. Here's the to-do list:
  1. Ownership section - DONE Dweller
  2. Statistics and records - I've fixed most of this now, and tagged three unsourced claims, that The Rambling Man has said he'll try to take a look at. Dweller DONE TRM
  3. Development squad - DONE Dweller
  4. On The Ball, City - DONE Dweller
  5. Sourcing checks - DONE TRM
  6. Photograph - DONE Dweller

I'll put my name against the things I'll work on before I take them. If anyone else wants to help, they're welcome. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can check sources if needed, but I'm not going to be a good options for knowing where to track down suitable replacements if needed. Hog Farm Talk 18:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost finished. When TRM has finished with number 2, would you like to do the sourcing check, Hog Farm? If you need suitable replacements for anything you can check here and one of us will step in. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you or TRM ping me when it's ready for that stage I'll get to it as soon as I get the chance. Hog Farm Talk 00:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller, might you remove the done templates (not used at FAC or FAR), lest someone else start that up? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, sorry. Looks like someone else (TRM?) sorted this for me. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting at the bottom, I found issues with the first section I checked (the Norwich City Women section). It is all based on a 10-year old source which can't be read. Is that person still the manager? (An "as of" date can be avoided by recasting to state "Person X was appointed manager in year Y" or some such, but I can't access the source.) Is the 95% stat still true? Etcetera ... I'll read through starting from the top as I find time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And found this, so that section can be updated apparently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to read through again myself, but it would probably be Sunday or Monday at the earliest before I could get to this. Hog Farm Talk 13:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am way behind swamped too, but wanted to get in a pass before Nikkimaria's weekly run to see if this one was good to go ... looks like it will take another week for more of us to get in there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: - Do you think you'd be able to address the women's team section? I have no idea where to even look for sources for that. Hog Farm Talk 00:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for complete citations, eg, this one is missing author and retrieval date: "Portsmouth 0–1 Norwich". BBC Sport. 2 May 2011. Archived from the original on 3 May 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed three that were missing publisher, but I don't have the time right now to go through the BBC refs one by one to make sure any applicable authors are included. Hog Farm Talk 00:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See MOS:ACCESS, MOS:DTAB; all tables should have a title for screen readers, like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ? The club's highest ever league finish came in the 1992–93 season SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest moving the Spoken Wikipedia audio file to the talk page, as it is from 2007 (hence misleading). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've time for and will be without internet for most of next week. I don't see anything else egregious and when Hog Farm is satisfied, I can also be considered (in my absence) satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller you might be on your own here going forward. I can't possibly face the idea of having to explain every rule of soccer within the article, so I'll gracefully remove myself from this process now. Sorry. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - any chance that you'd be willing to briefly revisit this just to find a new reference for the kits? Should be about ready to close once that gets addressed; I can look through the references to make sure they're completely formatted sometime after the kit gets better sourced. Hog Farm Talk 18:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ref for the kits table appears to only cover through 2008-2009, and the accompanying prose description doesn't cover everything. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very busy IRL at present, but I don't see why I can't sort out the issues mentioned. Just give me a little time. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, do you have a timeline for when you might be able to address these issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this month. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: ? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the women's section, with some gnoming help from a fabulous bloke. And I've killed the unreferenced and not very encyclopedic list of sponsors --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 18:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hog Farm --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 21:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I readthrough the article to see if this can be moved along. I reviewed this as if it was an FAC, wtih apoligies that I am not well-versed in UK association football (and I'm required to be a Sunderland F.C. supporter, so my knowledge of Norwich is even lower.) Some comments below:

  • The history section is a little lopsided, with whole decades summarised in a sentence while the 2009-present section is quite large. I suggest that the shorter sections be expanded to at least two paragraphs, or merged together per WP:OVERSECTION. I also suggest that 2009-present be trimmed.
  • The beginning of the "Colours" section seems to use a lot of quotes. I am not sure they are all necessary and perhaps some can be summarised instead.
  • Is the chorus of "On the Ball, City" in the "Supporters" section necessary for this article? I think this belongs in the song's article.
    • It's brief and incredibly significant to the story of Norwich and their fans. We've not included the full verses, which are in the song article. I think it deserves its spot. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 21:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Norwich have currently been unbeaten against Ipswich for over 12 years, encompassing 12 matches, including 5–1 and 4–1 victories, as well as a victorious play-off semi final fixture in 2015." This feels a little like fan-service, and could become outdated. Can this be removed?
  • I'm dubious of the "Current ownership" section. Chronologically, it feels like it jumps around a lot and I'm not sure the 2003 investors or the 2006-7 AGM information is relevant anymore. Maybe most of the information can be deleted, and relevant info (like its current ownership) can be moved to the History section? Either that, or I suggest a whole re-working of this section to describe the current ownership structure and who occupies various positions (to align it with other articles on companies)
    • I disagree. There's a narrative flow that isn't simplistically chronological because it's explanatory. It's highly relevant, important and very current. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 17:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two different numbers for stadium capacity: "Stadium" says "It has a capacity of 27,244." while "Statistic and records" says "As of July 2020, the capacity is 27,359." Also, I'd be in favour of removing the stadium stats from this section as much of this information is already stated in "Stadium" section
  • The "Club sponsors" section does not have any information pre-2006. Is this available somewhere?
  • "The under-18 players among other younger age groups make up the academy team." Needs a citation
  • Information about the fans raising money for the new sports facility using Tifosy is stated in both the "Supporters" and the "Development squad" sections. Should one of these mentions be removed?
  • "Norwich City Women" section feels a little underdeveloped. I think the article should include information on how this affiliation happened and the details of the relationship between the two clubs.
    • You're correct. NC Women is generally underdeveloped. There are almost no sources. For example, the club website gives a squad and some results, but no narrative. It's neglected in the club history for example. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 17:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me if you would like me to take another look. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: - I've looked through it again and while I fixed a few referencing formatting issues, I think this is overall good enough to close as keep - not perfect, but good enough. I do have one question " "Famous Norwich City Fans". The North Stand. 2 June 2012. Archived from the original on 17 July 2015. Retrieved 8 December 2014." - this source is a personal blog. Any reason to believe it's RS for featured article purposes? Hog Farm Talk 00:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close as keep my comments above have been addressed. conducted a copyedit, added alt text to images and removed px. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Norwich_City_F.C./archive1&oldid=1129272647"