Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everton F.C.

Everton F.C.

After putting a lot of work into the article I put it up for peer review and you can see the suggestions here. I now feel the criteria suggested have been met and it also adheres to WikiProject Football and featured article requirements. SenorKristobbal 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support whilst reading it yesterday I noted that it was to a very high standard, and fully deserves FA status King fish erswift 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as a non-native speaker of English, I can't really comment on the grammar, but otherwise, in terms of layout, lenght of sections, information included, referencing and other stuff, this deserves to be a Featured Article. – Elisson • Talk 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Riurik 05:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object:
- ~~Referencing is a little flaky and inconsistent, should really use work= parameter throughout.~~
- ~~Couple of citations needed to be added by the looks of things.~~
- This is the most serious objection: Needs more GFDL-licensed images. The Fair Use rationale for the Goodison Park image is probably not OK as it is possible to provide a freely-licensed photo of the stadium as contributors to Arsenal F.C. and Manchester City F.C. have done. Additionally, one of the team in action or on the pitch would be useful as well - it is worth searching for Creative Commons-licensed works, or taking some pictures yourself at the next home game you go to.
- No criteria given for inclusion in the bulleted list of notable players. If it is not possible to agree on one, then just remove it and provide a link to the main list article. The greatest-ever XI can stay though.
- ~~Navbox at the bottom looks a little wrong with that trailing vertical bar on the first line. Qwghlm 10:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
I have read the above points and have made relevant edits to address them. SenorKristobbal 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All my objections have been resolved, so changing vote to Support. Qwghlm 18:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article has transformed in recent weeks, and is now worthy of FA status. Oldelpaso 23:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support - Looks good. Two things I would say. Firstly, this comment - "Everton's second main rival is Manchester United. Recently crowd trouble has marred games." needs a citation. I've never heard of any particular rivalry between Everton and United fans. I'd also perhaps suggest putting the list of managers back in the main article. The size of the article wouldn't be increased in any great amount and most clubs pages have that sort of information on their main page. HornetMike 23:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Manchester United passage you cite has been reverted due to being unreferenced. (I would be very surprised if anybody could find a credible source to support the edits made by 80.195.92.192) ⁂veila # 01:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Can't put the whole list of managers back. Manchester City F.C. doesn't have a full list of managers and they were recently featured. The list was cut down after comments in a peer review so putting it back would be ignoring it. There is an obvious link to the managers page so its easy to see all the manager information a reader would want. SenorKristobbal 15:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Well written, concise and easy to read. Looks 'neat' - well laid out. Cas Liber 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]