The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot ( talk) 7 October 2020 [1].
This article is about English football club Burnley, which competes in the Premier League, the first tier. It's a club from a small town but with a rather interesting and large history. The article was passed as GA at the beginning of the year, and received a peer review (thanks Kosack, Paul W and No Great Shaker) and a copy edit (thank you Twofingered Typist) since. I also want to thank my mentor, Casliber, for making the article better. I look forward to any comments! WA8MTWAYC ( talk) 08:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I haven't taken part in an FAC discussion before, though I have a lot of experience at GAR and, as WA8MTWAYC kindly points out, I've tried to help out at peer review too. Please bear with me while I gain some idea of how FAR works but I will make a few initial comments about the nomination.
The content is well within scope and I think the coverage is both extensive and useful. While there is considerable detail, it is sufficient for the purpose of completing scope. As far as I can tell, the information is accurate and is adequately sourced. Overall, it is an interesting read (however, I concede that as a football supporter myself from a neighbouring town, I would find it interesting, especially as I've visited Turf Moor many times). I believe, based on past reviews, that the images are all acceptable – they are certainly relevant. The narrative is written well enough for GA purposes but I will be interested to see if FA requires a higher standard, though I would hope no one expects something that might contend for the Booker Prize or whatever.
I will see what more experienced FAR contributors say before committing myself but I would think this article is certainly in with a chance of success. Well done, WA8MTWAYC, and good luck. No Great Shaker ( talk) 11:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I was just reading the "Supporters and rivalries" section again and made a few minor amendments to wording and syntax. Still have this on watch and will be back. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I've just been reading the article again and I think it's there. Really pleased to support now. Well done. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P
I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
(I hope you don't mind I made some amends here regarding readability) Thanks very much for your comments, Lee Vilenski. It's all resolved now and I left comments under your points. If there's anything further I need to change, please let me know. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC ( talk) 18:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
These are some points I picked out, but I'm not seeing a huge amount that would really stop me from supporting. This is a good, thorough piece of work. Kosack ( talk) 12:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I've added this to the image/source reviews requests to get some, and also to the urgents list in order to scare up a review (hopefully) from someone not connected with the sports area. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I know next to nothing about this subject, but I'll take a crack at this anyway once I get the chance. Will probably be claimed for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 16:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
That's what I'm finding here. Willing to discuss any of these. If you'd fancy returning the favor, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Battle of Newtonia/archive1 needs another review. Hog Farm Bacon 22:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I've taken a peek at the source usage in the article. A rather large amount of sources are either the website of the club or Simpson 2007 which apparently is an affiliated source - sometimes that bespeaks a certain positive bias in coverage but sometimes it implies that the source is experienced in the topic. Otherwise I see national and local newspapers and websites. I question #135 and #134 - a press release by an involved company doesn't seem to be a very good justification for including the producer of the shirts in the article. What makes #142, #156, #180 and #182 (some other references come from that website) a reliable source? #145 I have to wonder where it gets its information from. Is Tim Quelch a good author to use as a source? As it's quite late here in Switzerland, I won't be doing a spot-check except upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Since 2019, the club's shirts have been supplied by Umbro, while the Asian betting brand LoveBet has been the chest and sleeve sponsoris the "last part" in question? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I've checked these with no issues, so I'm comfortable with saying that the spot checks are clean. Good work. Hog Farm Bacon 18:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot ( talk) 7 October 2020 [1].
This article is about English football club Burnley, which competes in the Premier League, the first tier. It's a club from a small town but with a rather interesting and large history. The article was passed as GA at the beginning of the year, and received a peer review (thanks Kosack, Paul W and No Great Shaker) and a copy edit (thank you Twofingered Typist) since. I also want to thank my mentor, Casliber, for making the article better. I look forward to any comments! WA8MTWAYC ( talk) 08:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I haven't taken part in an FAC discussion before, though I have a lot of experience at GAR and, as WA8MTWAYC kindly points out, I've tried to help out at peer review too. Please bear with me while I gain some idea of how FAR works but I will make a few initial comments about the nomination.
The content is well within scope and I think the coverage is both extensive and useful. While there is considerable detail, it is sufficient for the purpose of completing scope. As far as I can tell, the information is accurate and is adequately sourced. Overall, it is an interesting read (however, I concede that as a football supporter myself from a neighbouring town, I would find it interesting, especially as I've visited Turf Moor many times). I believe, based on past reviews, that the images are all acceptable – they are certainly relevant. The narrative is written well enough for GA purposes but I will be interested to see if FA requires a higher standard, though I would hope no one expects something that might contend for the Booker Prize or whatever.
I will see what more experienced FAR contributors say before committing myself but I would think this article is certainly in with a chance of success. Well done, WA8MTWAYC, and good luck. No Great Shaker ( talk) 11:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I was just reading the "Supporters and rivalries" section again and made a few minor amendments to wording and syntax. Still have this on watch and will be back. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I've just been reading the article again and I think it's there. Really pleased to support now. Well done. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P
I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
(I hope you don't mind I made some amends here regarding readability) Thanks very much for your comments, Lee Vilenski. It's all resolved now and I left comments under your points. If there's anything further I need to change, please let me know. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC ( talk) 18:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
These are some points I picked out, but I'm not seeing a huge amount that would really stop me from supporting. This is a good, thorough piece of work. Kosack ( talk) 12:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I've added this to the image/source reviews requests to get some, and also to the urgents list in order to scare up a review (hopefully) from someone not connected with the sports area. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I know next to nothing about this subject, but I'll take a crack at this anyway once I get the chance. Will probably be claimed for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 16:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
That's what I'm finding here. Willing to discuss any of these. If you'd fancy returning the favor, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Battle of Newtonia/archive1 needs another review. Hog Farm Bacon 22:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I've taken a peek at the source usage in the article. A rather large amount of sources are either the website of the club or Simpson 2007 which apparently is an affiliated source - sometimes that bespeaks a certain positive bias in coverage but sometimes it implies that the source is experienced in the topic. Otherwise I see national and local newspapers and websites. I question #135 and #134 - a press release by an involved company doesn't seem to be a very good justification for including the producer of the shirts in the article. What makes #142, #156, #180 and #182 (some other references come from that website) a reliable source? #145 I have to wonder where it gets its information from. Is Tim Quelch a good author to use as a source? As it's quite late here in Switzerland, I won't be doing a spot-check except upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Since 2019, the club's shirts have been supplied by Umbro, while the Asian betting brand LoveBet has been the chest and sleeve sponsoris the "last part" in question? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I've checked these with no issues, so I'm comfortable with saying that the spot checks are clean. Good work. Hog Farm Bacon 18:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)