Manchester City F.C.
Self-nom. Article about an English football (soccer) club. Previously peer reviewed, and I think I've covered everything that was raised. More stable than most football articles, and I think it is reaching a standard comparable to the other sports team FAs. Oldelpaso 14:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment- sometimes after using the noun "Manchester City F.C." or some noun directly related to it, a verb referring to a plural noun is used (as in the first sentence). Other sentences use verbs referring to a singular noun - "In more recent years, the club has fallen on harder times,". Can this be fixed? AndyZ t 21:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- British English allows the use of the discretionary plural in such cases, but I've changed the sentence for consistency. From a quick scan of the article this appears to be the only sentence affected, but I'll go through line by line later.
Oldelpaso 22:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The discretionary plural is not just grammatically correct British English, if used properly it's actually more precise. No need change it. bcasterline t 23:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have to disagree that it's more precise, although it's not incorrect if you want to constantly emphasise the plurality of an entity ("the crowd were boisterous"). The practice grew in relation to cricket teams, I believe, and has spread among some corporate/financial writers in reference to companies ("British Steel have just made a loss"). IMV, it's best avoided here.
Tony 13:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- The dicretionary plural is nearly always used when referring to any sports team in British English (and Commonwealth English too, I believe), both formally in the press and writtten word, and also common parlance. Since the MoS recommends British English usage and spelling for articles whose subjects are mainly pertaining to Britain (such as this), it is correct to use it; The Ashes and Arsenal F.C. are both examples of existing FAs which do so. Qwghlm 14:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Object, but only for one minor thing - this sentence:
- City supporters also frequently bemoan their team's unpredictability, which is summarised by the phrase "Typical City".
- Although as a football fan I know what the sentence is trying to convey, to the layman it is not particularly informative; if it is to be included it needs context and some references (both to City's unpredictability and to their fans' attitudes). If it's too hard to do that then I suggest removing the sentence entirely. Qwghlm 14:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support, comprehensive and well-referenced article. Brisvegas 09:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - This is the first time I participate in an FA review and I must admit that I am not quite familiar with the criteria here. Anyway, hope my comments would help improve the article:
- Section Honours: aren't the post-1992 divisions called "Division One" ane "Division Two" respectively per note?
- Sections Noted former players and Noted former players: "Noted" sounds a bit odd in this context. Perhaps "Notable" would be more appropriate?
- Section External links: what's the criteria for inclusion here? List appears a bit random to me. -- Pkchan 11:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Honours - good catch. It is the footnote which is in error, judging by the way the Football League website uses First Division / Second Division throughout e.g. [1]. I have changed it accordingly.
- Noted players - done.
- External links - I have removed some of the fansites from the external links in accordance with Wikipedia:External links. Oldelpaso 16:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nice to see the changes. Support. -- Pkchan 14:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Why is the "External links" section above the notes and references? It would seem more logical to first list the notes and web pages used in the making of the article, and then at the very bottom, when the article is "over", list external links to the rest of the web - also it is common practice to do so comparing to all other articles I've read. Poulsen 12:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Moved to bottom. Oldelpaso 16:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support: No matter the external links or not, it was a enjoyable read with a broad view of the club and its environment, and it is well referenced. It might do well with a picture of supporters celebrating like IFK Göteborg, though. Poulsen 17:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is Manchester City F.C. singular or plural? I'd assume it's singular, since it's defined as a football club, but I'm not sure. B/c if it is singular, you've got some grammar to correct. - Osbus 01:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- In British English, sports teams are usually referred to using the plural. See Qwghlm's comment above.
Oldelpaso 09:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I think you should indicate that somewhere, otherwise people are going to get confused. - Osbus 00:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support Excellent article Arnemann 22:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Although something mentioning Peter Reid's sacking in the history would be good, as IIRC that was what caused the decline. At the moment it reads as if he was still there when they got relegated. CTOAGN ( talk) 14:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- 'Support-Good article, well written and avoiding much of the flaws of most Football articles. Logan1138 16:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- support Borisblue 02:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)