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

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 removed by Dana boomer 13:21, 12 January 2013 [1].

Derry City F.C.

Review commentary

Derry City F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article review/Derry City F.C./archive1

Notified: Danny Invincible, WikiProject Football, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Northern Ireland

This is a June 2007 promotion that shows signs of being outdated in several aspects. I pointed out many concerns on the article's talk page, which I'll repeat here:

• The current squad, current staff, and managers sections all have tags indicating that there are few or no references verifying the content. This is a failure of FA criteria by itself.
• In Records, the first sentence is also tagged as needing a source.
• There are some other sections that could use additional citations, in particular the Colours and crests section. Most of the second half of that section appears to be uncited.
• Some prose and style issues crop up here and there. For example, there are two "however"s in the first four sentences of the lead, which is hardly great writing. I also see a missing period following "with the FAI allowing it to the First Division" in Modern highs and lows, and back-to-back paragraphs at the end of this section consist of a flowery sports media-style addition in improper present tense, and a badly formatted in-text quote.
• A potentially dated statement from July 2007 is in the article. This might not be a problem, but is worth investigating.
• Many non-free images in the article, which is problematic. The programme and single cover definitely should be removed, at a minimum.

I posted on the talk page more than a month ago and no improvements have been made to the article. Unfortunately, if the article stays in its present condition, I don't think it belongs among our best articles any more as the FA criteria do not appear to be met. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I gave help and advice to the FA nominator while he was developing the article. While it met 2007 FA standards, 2012 standards are significantly higher. This and the atrophy that has occurred in the intervening time mean it is a long way from where it needs to be. It is several years since the nominator last edited, which I guess leaves me as about as suitable a candidate to work on it as we have. While I could fix up the minor things, this needs access to offline sources to be saved. They aren't books that I could order from my local library, and its not something I'd be willing to buy books for. So unless Danny Invincible returns, the chances of this being saved are slim. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC, three weeks, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Concerns raised in the review section include sourcing, prose/MOS issues, and potential image problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, no progress, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – Some copy-editing has been done in the lead, but none of the tags have been dealt with and most of the issues I pointed out are still present. Had some referencing work been done, I'd have been more than happy to chip in and clean up other aspects of the article. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, no longer meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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