# Talk:A.F.C. Sudbury

Image:AFC Sudbury Badge.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been stated as Ballingdon, but I reckon that it's actually Brundon. Any thoughts? Dancarney (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I reckon Ballingdon (as I was the one that put it in!); if you look at this, you can see the stadium is closer to the Brundon Lane industrial estate (Ballingdon) than it is to Brundon, especially if you include the sewage works! пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that everything past the sewage works was Brundon. It's not that important either way. Dancarney (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I would've said Brundon too, I can't seem to find anything that gives an official demarcation of the areas though, and there isn't a cite here either way, and geographically it appears as close to one as to the other, so it'd have to be on the border from either direction. So I'll add the compromise of 'Ballingdon-Brundon' to the article unless a cite can be found on way or the other.Number36 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no indication on the club's website that the letters AFC have full stops after them, nor that it stands for Amalgamated Football Club.  If there is evidence for either of these, then please post it, otherwise I would be minded to change the infobox and move the article.   Kevin McE (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing on the club's website, but the entry on the Football Club History Database notes that the letters stand for Amalgamated Football Club. I think that the standard format for English club's is to punctuate "F.C." (all of the Premier League teams have "F.C." in their page titles) so "A.F.C." should be the same, certainly for the article's title. Dancarney (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The club does punctuate itself on badges etc - see here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:A.F.C. Sudbury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
The club was formed in 1999 by the merger of Sudbury Town and Sudbury Wanderers,[1] the process giving rise to the name Amalgamated Football Club Sudbury. - only the title should be bolded, the bolded terms in this sentence should not
 Done Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Their home ground is the King's Marsh Stadium in the Ballingdon part of Sudbury and their home colours are yellow and blue. - reword to Their home ground is the King's Marsh Stadium in the Ballingdon, which is a part of Sudbury; their home colours are yellow and blue.
 Done well, I've reworded somewhere between the original and this suggestion. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The club competes in the Southern Football League Division One Midlands having been transferred from the Isthmian League Division One North after the end of the 2007–08 season. - comma before having been
History
The club's relatively short history has, thus far, been very successful. - very successful is WP:POV, reword
 Done Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In their debut season (1999–2000) Sudbury finished in 3rd place in the Eastern Counties League Premier Division. - 1)comma after the dates 2)3rd-->third
 Done Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The following 5 seasons all resulted in Sudbury winning the same league's title - a league record. - 1)5-->five 2)link to the league's title?
 Done League is already linked in previous sentence. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
After finishing 3rd in 2005–06, and passing the necessary ground inspection, Sudbury were invited to take promotion into a resurrected Isthmian League Division One North, following the re-structuring of the National League System.  3rd-->third
 Done Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sudbury again qualified for the play-offs in 2007–08, finishing 2nd in the table, but were defeated in the semi-final by eventual winners Canvey Island. - 2nd-->second
 Done Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In the close-season manager Morsley resigned[9] and was replaced by his assistant, Nicky Smith. - 1)link to close-season? 2)comm after close-season
linked close-season, but I disagree about the necessity of the comma. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sudbury were moved into the Southern Football League Division One Midlands for 2008–09 following a restructuring of the English football pyramid. - comma before following In addition, move this to the end of the preceding paragraph or the beginning of the next paragraph, theres no need for this to be a stand alone sentence
moved sentence, but I disagree about the necessity of the comma. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In 2000–01 the club reached the first round proper of the FA Cup before being comprehensively defeated away at Darlington. - comma before
Can this section be expanded more, like with more in-depth information about the team, not just their playing history, but financial history, business history (owner of the club, etc.)
I doubt there is much information about this in circulation. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Team colors
Perhaps surprisingly, these were the colours of both the former Sudbury teams.  - Perhaps surprisingly is WP:POV, reword to something like "Coincidentally.."
 Done Dancarney (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
What is verifying this information? There is no image of the uniform to verify it.
 Done Reworded and referenced. Couldn't find information on both former teams, so have excluded Wanderers for the meantime. Dancarney (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This needs to be expanded, add more about the uniforms. Where they are produced, more on their description, etc.
I don't think where the team's kit is produced is in any way notable.Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Ground
At the time of A.F.C. Sudbury's formation the ground consisted of two pitches, a training area, clubhouse, floodlights, a 200-seat stand on the West side of the main pitch and covered ends behind the goals. - comma after formation
Disagree about this requiring a comma. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A 300-capacity terrace (The Shed) was constructed on the East side of the pitch in 2000 and houses the more vocal section of the crowd. - comma before "and"
Disagree about this requiring a comma. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The ground is enclosed by fencing and there are three turnstiles. - 1)comma before and 2)Where are the turnstiles? 3)What is verifying this?
 Done Clarified and ref'd but disagree with the comma. Dancarney (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
A planning permission request was lodged with Babergh District Council in May 2008 for the construction of the new facilities - so what's the follow up on this request?
**As far as I'm aware, and with the lack of any other information, this has yet to go further. Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Permission granted with provisos, which is now noted in the article. Dancarney (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Achievements
These achievements should be formatted like "World Championship: 2000-01, 2004-05"
The format is currently along the lines of that of FA Aston Villa F.C..Dancarney (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm skeptical about the biggest defeat/lost, as it seems WP:TRIVIA (trivial)
This is pretty standard fare for football team records.Dancarney (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sources for the achievements?
 Done Dancarney (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
League history
The note should be in a {{ref}} and {{note}} format
 Done Dancarney (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Reword the note to The club turned down the opportunity of promotion due to financial reasons.
 Done Dancarney (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
References
What makes "Football Club History Database" reliable?
The database been repeatedly approved as reliable by User:Ealdgyth, who assesses the reliability of all sources in Featured Article Candidates.  User:ChrisTheDude presented the following argument, which was accepted for FACFCHD is regarded as the most definitive source for historical club-by-club/season-by-season data in English football.  Please consider these football clubs' official sites: Cobham F.C., whose history page starts "For a full breakdown of Cobham's history in the league and FA competitions, check out the Football Club History Database." Abingdon Town F.C., which refers readers from their history page to the FCHD for major milestones and cup results. Biggleswade United F.C. says "For a breakdown of our history in senior football go to the Football Club History Database website".  Langney Sports F.C. takes its historical data from FCHD.  The South West Peninsula League website takes the entirety of its historical data straight from FCHD.  There are many more.
Dancarney (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources need to be properly formatted with the {{cite web}} template.
 DoneDancarney (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Response
I agree with the disagreements on commas, I was misreading the sentences. I review at WP:FLC, so I get confused as to the summary prose of a list and an article like this one.
I disagree with the format comment about the achievements. Just because one article has it like that doesn't mean all of them should be like that, this would well like the ones in the professional wrestling accomplishments section, like it is here.
Okay, thanks for clarifying that comment about the source.
Awaiting replies to other unanswered comments.--TRUCO 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a note - the formatting of the honours section is standard throughout football club articles (and is according to the football club manual of style). The main advantage to just listing singular titles is that it allows multiple competitions under the same league to be compiled under one heading, e.g.
Eastern Counties League
Premier Division champions 2000-01
Division One champions 1999-2000
League Cup winners 2001-02.
пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Followup
The biggest defeat/lost needs a reference for verifiability.
I still feel the team colors/uniform section needs to be expanded, like where the blue trim is located, and other features of their uniform.
Other than that, the article is okay.--TRUCO 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the biggest win/loss, as I couldn't find a source, and I've corrected some of your erroneous comma usage. I don't think that precise details of a semi-professional football club's kit are worth commenting on. Dancarney (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
As I'd hate to see a nomination fail on such a trivial point, I've added in a bit more detail, don't know if it helps at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Overall Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Per prose comments above.
B. MoS compliance: 
Some MOS issues in the prose above.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Some are questionable sources and formatting of sources is incorrect.
C. No original research: 
There is some WP:POV and unsourced statements.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
The article could be expanded to say more about their history.
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
A couple of WP:POV issues.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I would fail this article, but I believe it may have a chance. On hold for 7 days.TRUCO 17:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll pass the article as it now meets WP:WIAGA, but the some of the publishers in the references should be fixed, as in the publishers should say the publisher name not the URL of the websites.--TRUCO 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A.F.C. Sudbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528173000/http://www.afcsudbury.com/squad/players1detail.asp?playerid=133 to http://www.afcsudbury.com/squad/players1detail.asp?playerid=133
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on A.F.C. Sudbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.afcsudbury.com/news/headlines.asp?ID=4660
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111052153/http://www.afcsudbury.com/club/history.asp to http://www.afcsudbury.com/club/history.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927121458/http://www.afcsudbury.com/match/matchreports.asp?ID=3321 to http://www.afcsudbury.com/match/matchreports.asp?ID=3321
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120926213922/http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?&newsmode=FULL&nid=49770 to http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?&newsmode=FULL&nid=49770
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.isthmian.co.uk/leagues?league_news_item&id=2681874&lid=256&did=2102
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.afcsudbury.com/2011/09/the-men-of-afc-sudbury-since-the-club-began-part-two-l-to-z/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)