As of 17 June 2024, 16:35 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached.
I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues I raised on WikiTalk Football have not been touched at all in the last two weeks. The middle years of the club's 150-year history are very much undersourced: I count eight full paragraphs with no sources. In many others, there are sentences that follow citations and are probably also unsourced. There is also an argument that this history section is too long as subsidiary articles exist: historic clubs like
Liverpool F.C. have a history section with no sub-sections. I haven't evaluated the quality of other sections but the issues of the history section are glaring and quite clearly this is not at Featured Article status as it stands.
Unknown Temptation (
talk) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree - the
Birmingham City F.C. article looks more likely to be a featured article than Aston Villa when comparing these two articles. I admit, I never knew about
this while adding on the
Talk:Aston Villa F.C. page, which may be of use but undersourcing is definitely the reason for this FA review.
Iggy (
Swan) (
Contribs) 21:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with all that has been said on the history section. I'd also like to note that the honours section has a new format which is outlined in the WP:FOOTY template, it is seen on the
Liverpool and
Manchester United articles. If there's a willing editor, this article has the capacity to remain an FA with some work.
Idiosincrático (
talk) 11:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to FARC while various editors are adding information to the site, it seems like these are updates of the roster and do not address the concerns listed above.
Z1720 (
talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply