Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Malmö FF/archive1

Malmö FF

Malmö FF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Malmö FF/archive1

Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it satisfies the Wikipedia:FA criteria. As of present the only FA of a Swedish football club is IFK Göteborg, therefore I have worked hard in the previous year to improve this article, with the help of a peer review and copyediting from Wikipedia:COPYEDITORS I managed to get the article promoted to GA status. After the promotion I once again got the article peer reviewed to prepare for FAC. After the latest peer review I have done some final small detail edits to ensure that the article has what it takes to become an FA. In conclusion, I believe that the Malmö FF articles satisfies the FA criteria and that the article is good enough to become the second only Swedish football club FA. Thanks! Reckless182 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot, see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed --Reckless182 (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In defense of the images used in the article, User:Fasach Nua's copyright tag on the article
I don't know if Fasach Nua is referring to a specific image or if he thinks that there are too many images in the article since he hasn't motivated the tag anywhere yet. In defense, I believe that every picture in the article is of fair use and acceptable copyright status which has been labeled accordingly and that every image is necessary to further illustrate and enrich the article. The are ten images in the article with the team logo in the infobox included, this is equally as many as in featured article Manchester United F.C., one more than in Arsenal F.C. and less than in Aston Villa F.C.. Since these articles are prime examples of FA's, why is the number of images a problem in this article? Thanks. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

FN has a habit of tagging articles while marking edits as minor, and then failing to engage in any other way. User_talk:Fasach_Nua#Calgary_Hitmen shows an example. Take his image reviews with a pinch of salt. - hahnchen 19:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: There are a lot of images in there under that curious "PD Sweden" tag- could you please explain to me the difference between a photographic work and a photographic picture? J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've done some research into Swedish law and I found that "fotografiska bilder", photographic pictures are pictures that has been taken by anybody whereas "fotografiska verk" are pictures taken by a professional photographer, this is weird since the license tag specifies that images of the press fall under "fotografiska bilder". Perhaps an image with an unknown author as in the case of most of the older images in the article is a "fotografisk bild"since the photographer is not known. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Reckless182 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So far I've only been able to find information about this in Swedish. According to the swedish wikipedia at http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkshöjd, an image is a fotografiskt verk if it has "verkshöjd" (uniqueness or orginality). Thus images that could have been taken by anyone are fotografiska bilder and free if taken before January 1st 1969. Reckless182 (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now based on my research added more info and clarified the image licenses for all images in the article with the "PD Sweden" tag. They should all be correct and no longer a problem. Reckless182 (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: As all the sources are in Swedish (I assume this is true of the two books, and they should be marked accordingly) I can't check these for reliability or for copyvios. I have checked the formats, which are generally in good order, though the books should be in alphabetical sequence. A couple of general issues:-

• It is not always clear where information in some of the tables has come from. For example, the "On loan" section has no citations.
• Data such as seasons' results should be cited directly to a source, not to a linked WP article.
• The second paragraph of the Stadiums section has uncited information relating to ground capacity.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The concerns above are addressed and should all be fine now, if there is anything I've missed please inform me. The only section I'm having trouble finding a good source for is the "Season results", Since this section will be updated every year it is troublesome to find a source which updates accordingly. I could source http://svenskfotboll.se/allsvenskan/tidigare-ar/ but then the user would have to click on each year to actually verify the claim. I could also use the book by Rikard Smitt but in terms of season results this is already outdated. I'm open for all suggestions. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have struck the issues that you have resolved. I can't really help with sources for the seasons' results as I have no idea what statistics are published, on or offline, for Swedish football clubs. The link article, List of Malmö FF seasons, is no use as it doesn't cite any sources. I'm afraid some digging and delving will be necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I can source each individual season from the official club yearbooks. Neither Malmö FF or The Swedish Football Association keeps an updated record online with this statistics. As I am at university at the moment I can't look up the yearbook sources until Wednesday night. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources added for all seasons. Will that solve both the remaining issues? --Reckless182 (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Section was removed to avoid Wikipedia:Recentism, check the talk page of this FAC for the discussion. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have informed Brianboulton about these changes but have received no response since 7 February, I have left two messages on his talk page, the latest on 14 February. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

NeutralOppose, mostly on prose and related issues

• "affiliated to" -> "affiliated with"

Fixed --Reckless182 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent date format

Fixed --Reckless182 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• WP:HYPHEN - check for correct hyphen use throughout

All hyphens, en dashes and em dashes are now used correctly throughout the article. The article uses spaced en dashes instead of em dashes consistently, as permitted by WP:EMDASH. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Needs editing for tone - should be neutral and encyclopedic throughout

One subheading has been reworded and a couple of sentences have been reworded to make the article more neutral. See also Talk:Malmö FF for discussion on how to make the article more neutral. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "In the 1970s the club won Allsvenskan in 1970, 1971, 1974, 1975 and 1977 as well as Svenska Cupen in 1976 and 1978" - grammar and redundancy

Fixed --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Still needs prose tightening/minor copyediting throughout, as there are several instances of grammar errors, wordiness, and awkward phrasings

Me, User:Demiurge1000 and User:Oldelpaso have copyedit various sections of the article. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1998, midfielder/striker Yksel Osmanovski became the first Muslim player for Sweden, when Sweden lost 1–0 to the USA" - lacks closing punctuation, does not identify the venue for this game (Olympics? World Cup? Some other tournament?)

Fixed --Reckless182 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sentence has been removed due to discussion, see below. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Several short choppy sentences and paragraphs

I think the paragraphs are fine. I've looked them over and they all treat different subjects and would be confusing if put together. Could you specify an example if you still disagree? --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1990, defender Jean-Paul Vondenburg became the first black player playing for the Swedish national football team, in a game against the United Arab Emirates." - source doesn't verify that he was the first black player for the team

I've looked everywhere for sources for this one, this source (http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/doinggoals/2010/03/) is the only one I can find online. The problem is that it is a blog, BUT it is a part of http://www.thelocal.se/ which is a reliable source. Can I use it or should I just remove the sentence? The problem is that the sentence of Osmanosvki will make no sence on its own with him being the only example of multi-culture. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES says "In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source". WP:NEWSBLOG covers the issue at hand specifically; "Several newspapers host columns that they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources, so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" (my emphasis). The particular blog in question is listed at thelocal's website as being under "Readers' Blogs" (of which there are several dozen) as opposed to "The Local's Blogs" (of which there are two dozen). Clearly the blog in question is not written by a professional, but one presumes that the site would exercise a certain amount of editorial oversight on the readers' blogs that they choose to permanently feature on this section of their site. So the reliability of this particular blog as a source is borderline. Does it or any other source discuss the multiculturalism of the club in general, or do they just state facts about the background of some of the players? If the latter, should the article discuss it in this way? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that explanation. I can't remember any other source discussing the matter of multiculturalism. Its a known fact that the city of Malmö and youth teams of Malmö FF are of many nationalities but maybe this is not something for this article. I'll contemplate on removing the paragraph altogether. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I decided to remove the paragraph altogether. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Finally, a recurring sketch in the second season of the comedy sketch show Hipphipp! involved a group of Malmö FF fans singing and chanting while performing everyday tasks, such as shopping or operating an ATM" - I'm not seeing this in the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, added new source, the only one I could find. There is a clip on Youtube but I doubt that I could use that as a source? --Reckless182 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the other issues with copyediting, User:Demiurge1000 who copyedited the article this December has informed me that he will respond to claims regarding prose and related issues within the next day or two. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I must be getting slack as I missed two peer reviews on this. Fundamentals look fairly solid from a football point of view. Minor issues listed on FAC talk so as to avoid cluttering this page. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

All issues fixed, please inform me if there is anything else. --Reckless182 (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, provided prose reviewers are happy. Structure, comprehensiveness and neutrality all looking good. On the prose aspect, I've done some light copyediting, but will now be offline for a few days and thus unable to do any more. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• First years in Allsvenskan and early glory: En dash needed for 7-0 in second paragraph of section.
• "this was the first step of many that lead to the most successful era in the history of the club." "lead" → "led".
• Colours and crest: The en dash in "all–white" should probably just be a regular hyphen.
• "in accordance with the clubs main colours...". "clubs" → "club's".
• Rivals: There's no need to be linking 1930s, as that link has no real value for this article.
• "Minor rivalry because of geographical closeness exists with Trelleborgs FF and Landskrona BolS". I'm not a big fan of the grammar or flow in this sentence. Would "Because of geographical closeness, minor rivalries exist with Trelleborgs FF and Landskrona BolS" be any better?
• In popular culture: Last word in "which portray the club from both supporter and player perspectives during the 1997 and 2000 season" should be plural.
• Again, you don't need a link to a decade range (1940s).
• Statistics: Remove capitalization from the first word of "All-time Allsvenskan table."
• The all caps in the title of reference 26 should be removed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

All issues now fixed, please inform me if there is anything else. --Reckless182 (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked, current reference 25 has a title word with all capital letters. Zap the caps the same way you did with my last comment above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Support – Article is in great shape, but only one quibble. There are too many paragraphs and sentences that are starting with wording "Malmo FF are/were/have...". It makes me feel that this article is a some sort of a compilation of thesis. Bit of rewording and I'll be happy to support. Utinsh (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit of rewording. I hope you think it looks better now. Reckless182 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments taken care of Utinsh (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers mate! Reckless182 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Support - reading through now. Looks good. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

:ref 25 appears to be a dead link....

Replaced with ref to the actual magazine article. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

ref check - in ref 34, how do we get "most loyal and active fans"?

Sentence removed, leaning POV. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• More review needed. On first glance, I see violations of MOS:CAPTIONS, curly quotation marks in violation of MOS:QUOTE, etc. Image review also required. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now tried to rephrase the captions to make sure that they do not violate MOS:CAPTIONS, please do tell if there is a specific caption that has these problems. I have also removed the one and only use of curly quotation marks. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've further tweaked three of the captions and I believe they now all meet MOS:CAPTIONS. I've also confirmed there are now no curly quotation marks in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Image review - doing an image review now, will post below when done. I've also read the captions used in the article, and I have two comments: (a) The first caption "Malmö IP in 1910" is a bit disconcerting. I had to read the adjacent text to learn that this was a football ground. Maybe say more precisely what is shows (the entrance?); (b) The second image says "The Malmö FF team of 1944" - should that not say 1943-4 or 1944-5? Compare to the image further down the article: "The Malmö FF team of 1948–1949". Carcharoth (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The copyrighted logo image is used under a non-free use rationale and the paperwork and rationale look fine. The link to the source works as well (for now).
  • The football kit images are created in a strange way I've never seen before. I hope that is all OK.
  • Of the remaining eight images, four are user-uploaded images and the licenses all look fine, though File:Malmö stadion.jpg could do with a bit of tidying up on the image page. The other four are uploaded under "Fotografisk bild" (see discussion at the start of this FAC). I'm not going to pretend I understand "Fotografisk bild", so I'm passing on that aspect of this article.

  Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the image review. I've changed the captions of the two pictures you mentioned above, I hope they are OK now. The image page of File:Malmö stadion.jpg has also been cleaned up. For the four uploaded pictures under "fotografisk bild" I have tried to clarify these as much as possible to make them verifiable. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes and updates. I think the images and captions are fine now, as long as "Fotografisk bild" works out OK, but that was discussed above, as I said. Carcharoth (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to notify that I have replaced one image with another. File:Swedbank_stadion_29_june_2009.jpg has been replaced by File:Pano of Swedbank Stadion.jpg which is a panorama picture. The new image has been uploaded by a new user (PGN) under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license so it should check out OK. Can this confirmed? --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

New image is also fine. The article looks fine as well, but I would need to read it through properly to be certain. Let me know if that is needed, as I may have time later in the week. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Layout changes and added content - I merged the "Supporters" and "Rivals" sections into a new section called "Supporters and rivalries". I think this looks better and I've seen it the same way on a few other football club FAs. I've also added a new section called "Footnotes" which is self explanatory. I added a footnote to fully explain how the title "Swedish champions" has been awarded over the years. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Finetooth comments. I peer-reviewed this article in mid-December and proofed the latest version today. I made quite a few minor changes today, but here are other things to consider:

Early years

"They won this division in the first season, and were promoted to Svenska Serien Västra, the highest level of competition in Sweden at the time. However, they were relegated after a single season... ". - Rather than linking "promoted", which readers already understand, I would link "relegated", the less familiar word.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Successful 1970s...

Since you use Svenska Cupen in this section, perhaps the lead should say Svenska Cupen rather than Swedish Cup.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"After a period of respectable positions in the league under the management of Keith Blunt and Tord Grip in the early 1980s, Roy Hodgson took over in 1985." - The sentence structure suggests that Hodgson had respectable positions under Blunt and Grip. Recast as "After the team performed respectably under managers Keith Blunt and Tord Grip in the early 1980s, Roy Hodgson took over in 1985"?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"He led the club to two Swedish Championships in 1986 and 1988, even though the club won Allsvenskan five years in a row between 1985 and 1989." - Rather than the confusing "even though", should this say "after"? Then the explanation in the next sentence might appear, in shortened form, in parentheses as "Between 1982 and 1992 Allsvenskan had play-offs for the best teams after the regular season was over.)"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Other than finishing as runners-up in Allsvenskan in 1996, the 1990s were disappointing" - The sentence, aside from the misplaced modifier, seems to violate WP:NPOV in that the results were only disappointing to the team and Malmö FF fans, presumably, and a cause for joy in certain other quarters. Maybe: "Other than finishing as runners-up in Allsvenskan in 1996, the team did not excel in the 1990s".

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Supporters and rivalries

"Supras Malmö is the most visible group in the main supporter stand at Swedbank Stadion today? - Delete "today" as vague and unnecessary since 2010 appears a couple of sentences later?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Because of geographical proximity, minor rivalries exist with Trelleborgs FF and Landskrona BoIS, which are both also located in Scania." - I would move this orphan paragraph up a bit by making it the first sentence of the paragraph that begins "The main rivals of the club are... ". The idea of rivalries would hold the merged paragraph together; the minor rivalries would segue into the main ones. Then the paragraph about the special rivalry with IFK Malmö would end the section.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Stadiums

"by ladies team LdB FC Malmö, who were previously the ladies section of Malmö FF." - I think "women's" is preferable to "ladies", which seems a bit archaic, probably not accurate, and possibly condescending.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Present day capacity is 7,600" - Replace the vague "present day" with "Capacity in 2011 is..."?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture

"The two films are now seen as classic portrayals of the club." - This seems a bit POV-ish in that "classic" is an overstatement and the passive voice avoids saying who regards the films in this way. I would simply delete this sentence.

I agree, removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Current squad

"Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules." - Should this be tightened to "Flags indicate national teams as defined by FIFA rules"?

Sorry, nothing I can do about that since that is a default text which automatically appears with the "Template:Football squad start". --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There must be a way to converse with the template editors, though that's not something I've ever done. Is there really nothing we can do if a template contains an error or, in this case, inelegant prose? Finetooth (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe we can add a request to Template talk:Football squad start. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I leave this for you to decide. The difference is small, but the template repeats itself in many articles. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

WP:MOSBOLD advises against double bolding and suggests using italics for emphasis, if necessary. Double-bolding plus bolding plus wikilinks makes the statistics section look like its yelling at the reader. To calm it down, I'd remove all the double bolding, and I'd try italics for sub-sub heads like "Winners (16)". I think it would also be best to unlink all of the seasons so that the sea of blue becomes a nice, calm black.

I removed the bolding from runner-up and tiers. For some weird reason I can't see the result of my edits, I'm not sure why. I decided to keep the bolding for the winner titles as well as the links for the seasons. I know from experience that I would want to know more about a specific season when reading a section like this. See the FA article Arsenal F.C. for an example on the same usage of bolding and links. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The section looks slightly better, but the double bolding is still there. (The wikilink automatically adds bolding; the second layer of bolding has been added by hand and can be removed.) Also, although I'll defer to your experience with the specific-season links, why link the same ones multiple times? For example, 1943–44 is linked under "Swedish Champions" and again under "Allsvenskan" and again under "Swedish Champions and Svenska Cupen". The row of links under "Swedish Champions" is almost an exact duplicate of the row of links under "Allsvenskan". What is the point of this duplication? Finetooth (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Double bolding now removed, but is wikilinked text really in bold? Also removed duplicate wikilinks, all links left are to different articles and thus all left should be necessary. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. To me, the section looks better than before. My point, really, was that using emphasis of any sort for too many things reduces the impact of all emphasis. If everything is important, then nothing is more important than anything else. I would probably not bold the Winners either, but the difference will not stop me from supporting promotion. Also, your question about wikilinked text and bolding caught me up short because I've been conflating them. You are right. They are not the same, and I will stop saying they are: ouch, ouch, ouch. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Club honours

"Both domestic league and cup honours have been won by Malmö FF as well as having been runners-up in European and international cups." - Passive and a bit awkward. Suggestion: "Malmö FF have won domestic, national, and international honours." Finetooth (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Striking all but two. Finetooth (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Striking all and switching to support. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Reckless182 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• The bit about this football club reaching the 1979 European Cup Final is mentioned several times in the article (five times in fact), but there is nothing at all about their other games played in European competitions. One thing I was looking for is how many times they have qualified to play in European competitions, but I couldn't find that in the article. So I looked a bit harder, and eventually spotted the link to Malmö FF in Europe. That looks good, but there should be some sort of summary of that in the main article. What I would look for at a minimum is how many times they have played in each European competition, and the first and last times, and the fact that they have qualified (as defending champions) for the 2011-12 European Champions League second qualifying round.

Working on it. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Added more context under club honours in the statistics section. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would also be worth pointing out how many games the club plays in a season, and when the season starts and finishes (from looking at the Allsvenskan, it looks like 15 games in a league of 16 teams, and the season runs from March to October - that is useful information for the reader that could be brought over to this article). I'm used to the UK football season, and I was surprised to read that the Swedish league was played over that period - must be the weather, I guess!

I've added the fact that the league runs from April to October (March was only last year) in the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the number of games? In the UK, it is 38 games. Is it 30 games in Sweden? If so, don't bother to mention (I forgot to double it for home and away). Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also, are there any special adaptations to the weather? You could also say what the furthest is the team has to travel to get to matches. Essentially, anything that is done differently in Swedish football compared to other countries is worth mentioning (for example, was the league running in 2010 during the World Cup?).

Is that really relevant fact in this article? Wouldn't it be more suitable for the article about Allsvenskan? --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I've struck this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• You might also want to bring in the most pertinent facts from the various lists and seasons that have their own articles. Other questions I would have are: who is the most expensive player in their history in terms of transfer money (both buying and selling), and who owns and manages the club (is it privately owned or something different)? Are figures available for the turnover, for instance? Player salaries over time (were they fully professional right from the start? If not when did they turn professional?), and comparing that to the money footballers get elsewhere, and where footballers rank in Sweden (can you become a millionaire by playing football in Sweden?).

Working on it. I know which players are the most expensive, bought and sold, the only trouble is that Swedish clubs have a tradition of not making transfer sums publicly known, so getting a source for these claims will be hard as the tabloids are the only ones giving out information in that area, and they're only guessing so I wouldn't use them as a source. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Added what I could source to the new "Ownership and finance" section. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Comment struck. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Another example is List of Malmö FF chairmen - that says that Eric Persson "is widely regarded as the most important person in the clubs history to present day." But this doesn't come across at all in the article, all that is mentioned is his election, who succeeded him, and the bit about the club name being added to the shirt design.

Working on it. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, added more content about him after the sentence about him being appointed chairman. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• More context is also needed. Compared to the large European clubs, this one is undoubtedly a small club, but how small and how large is it compared to other clubs in Sweden? I did find the following sentence: "Successful sponsor work and player sales also made Malmö FF the richest club in Sweden, a position they still hold." - but that sentence needs to be written so it doesn't get out-of-date, and if figures are available for just how "rich" the club is, you need to give them. Also, who are the sponsors, they don't seem to be named in the article at all.

I have added a paragraph in the lead concerning the financial and legal structure of the club. I hope that it was something like that you were looking for. Will add the sponsors somewhere also. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph about sponsors under the new section I mentioned above. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Also looks good. That will have to be kept updated, along with changes in players and managers and so on. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I also compared this article to IFK Göteborg (the featured Swedish football club article you mentioned in the nomination statement), and I noticed that that one doesn't have a "In popular culture" section. I like the content there, but would the stuff about the documentaries not fit better in the history section? Documentaries are not really examples of "in popular culture". That only leaves the Om Sara and comedy show bits, the latter being trivial, the former less so, but it should be possible to work that in somewhere else. On a more general point, have you looked at the IFK Göteborg article to help plan this article? Finally, on a more pedantic note, the header over there is "Stadia" and here it is "Stadiums" - I don't mind which it is, but some people will.

Will look into that. Yes I have looked at IFK Göteborg, Aston Villa F.C. and Arsenal F.C. to mention a few for guidance. I don't think the section name needs to be changed, most football articles use "Stadiums". --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at a few different FAs and there are some notable examples out there with a similar section. The documentaries should be mentioned somewhere and think the content of the paragraph is unique enough to qualify a section of its own. To place the content in the history section would only confuse the reader I believe. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still slightly wary of the "In popular culture" section (that was the main point I was making here). At a minimum, I would retitle that. It is more brand recognition and/or cultural history than anything else. Carcharoth (talk)

I saw that you renamed it to "Media coverage" which better explains the content of the section. Is that OK for this comment to be crossed out? I understand your concern but with the exception of the Mitt hjärtas Malmö films all are in popular media, even though the two Blådårar films are described as documentaries they are outlined as films and they were even shown in the theatres. I think the section is fine as it is now. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hope that helps give some ideas as to what I was expecting to find when reading the article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - with the changes and additions made during the FAC, I'm happy to support with the caveat that the standard checks are completed by other reviewers (and also noting that I did the image review, in case that affects things). Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OpposeComments: Although this seems a very well researched and comprehensive article, I think there are substantial problems with the prose. I've read the lead and first two sections so far. There are several parts which are very clunky and do not read well. Other parts are confusing or imprecise so I don't believe it meets 1a. I think a thorough copy-edit would greatly benefit the article. Here are some of the points I found, but there are others too:

• "in terms of total trophies won": In what other way could they be successful? Perhaps cut this.

This sentence was previously criticised for being close to POV after being formulated as "making them possibly the most successful club in Sweden", as you've understood the Swedish football system has been experimented with a couple of times so there are many ways a club could be considered successful, most Swedish Championships (IFK Göteborg), most Allsvenskan titles (Malmö FF), most Svenska Cupen titles (Malmö FF) and the total number of titles which I believe is a good way of defining a club as successful. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "on three occasions when the title of Swedish champions was not decided by the outcome of that league" Clumsy and slightly odd. Presumably this is the highest league, so why was the champion not decided this way, and what is the significance?

Added reflabel note to notes at the end of the article which explains why. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• " This made them the first, and, as of 2011, the only Swedish football club..." Why not just "made them the only Swedish football club, as of 2011, ..."

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "For this, Malmö FF were awarded the Svenska Dagbladet Gold Medal" Merge with previous sentence? "... to have reached the final of the competition, for which the team were awarded the Svenska Dagbladet Gold Medal."

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "the annual general meeting is the highest policy-making organ": I don't think a meeting can be an organ.

I'm having difficulties finding a better expression for this, this is the definition from the Swedish-English dictionary site I use: "Organ: a government agency or instrument devoted to the performance of some specific function". --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed (see below) --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• " is the highest policy-making organ, the meeting approves the keeping..." Comma is incorrect after organ, should be a period.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The club are a legal entity of itself without stocks" Not a great sentence; should it be the club is? And "are a legal entity of itself without stocks" is clumsy.

Reworded. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "run by a managing director who then informs the chairman of his work on a regular basis": Regularly informs? And informs the chairman of his work sounds odd: presumably the chairman knows what the MD's work is and it is ambiguous whose work we are talking about.

Reworded. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "in season from April to October": Again, odd-sounding. What about "where the season lasts from April to October"?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of the lead reads like a random assembly of facts.

The lead should summarise the article and I believe these facts are too important to remove, I'm open for suggestions on what do with the paragraph. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• History section starts oddly: what is the significance of 19 young players? This is explained in the following sentences, but I think it would make more sense to start with the municipal initiative and Bollklubben Idrott before mentioning the 1910 foundation.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also, the structure of Swedish football does not come across in this section. As someone who does not follow modern Swedish football at all, I get the impression that domestic football in Sweden went through some big changes at this time which affected the club but it is hard to get the sense of this from the Early years section.

I've added some more content to clarify the situation. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• " In addition to relegation to Division 2, the club suffered bans for the entire board and twenty-six players" What board? Who was on the board, they have not been mentioned till now. Was this all the players? Why were the players punished?

I'm referring to the club's board of directors, I have reworded the sentence to include this. There has been given no explanation in the sources as to why the players were punished, perhaps because they accepted the sums they were given? However I don't see a reason to speculate in the article. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine if there's no explanation. If Sweden was as fussy about amaterism as England was, I'm not surprised... --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The unofficial version of events suggests..." What unofficial version? Who tells this story, where does it come from and why is it unofficial? This is too imprecise. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reworded. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I will address your concerns shortly. What I can tell you right now is that the articles has been properly copyedited more than once by User:Demiurge1000, other editors have also contributed. I do agree with some of your points but I don't believe everything needs to be spelled out as simply as possible. I will look at your points and reply here after I'm done. Thanks for your comments! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A few of the problematic phrases quoted by Sarastro1 are totally unfamiliar to me, so it's likely some of these have come from material that has been added since I last edited the article, mostly extra material added to meet concerns/requests that have been raised earlier in this FA candidacy. There might also be a couple of later sections of the article that have only had my pre-GA copyedit, and not the more extensive reworking after it became an FAC. I'll go over both these aspects again within the next few days, but it probably makes sense if Reckless182 makes any needed changes regarding structure and coverage etc first. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to address the comments from Carcharoth (see above) as well as these ASAP. Therefore it is very possible that new content will be added albeit in small quantity. I will inform Demiurge1000 when I have done this. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am now done adding new content and awaiting response from Carcharoth and Sarastro1, I will inform Demiurge1000 that he can go ahead with the copyediting. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I did some rephrasing - could you check? I'm not clear, though, what "keeping the books" is (do you mean approving the financial accounts for the year?) and I'm also not clear what this "legal entity of itself" is, but I get the impression it is designed to insulate the board and players from financial claims (e.g. in the event of bankruptcy). Is that similar to a public limited company? Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! looks much better. By "approving the keeping of the books" I mean that every year the board of directors present the financial report for the previous year (which has of course been looked over by auditors already) and the general meeting have to approve that the "keeping of the books" have been done in a proper way or else the board of directors would have to redo the whole process. By "legal entity of itself" I'm referring to the Swedish term "Juridisk person", compare with Legal personality. Associations such as football clubs in Sweden are regarded as "Juridiska personer" when they have a charter of which they follow. Being a "Juridisk person" means exactly what you described in the last sentence, it is designed to protect the management and members of the club from financial claims much like in a plc. Maybe this doesn't have to be explained in such long terms but rather with some terms wikilinks such as "Legal personality" and "Financial statement"? I'm open for suggestions. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced "keeping of the books" with "accounts" in the lead. Accounts is Brit-Eng for financial statement or financial report. (Book-keeping is also used this way in Brit-Eng, but it's slightly more informal, and in any case a bit more long-winded.) I'll also make this consistent with wherever else it's mentioned later in the article, unless I find some problem in doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Further comment: I'm happy with the responses to my queries, so I've struck the oppose. I would like to read the remainder of the article, but I will wait until the copy-editing is complete as I did spot other prose issues when I looked previously, so feel free to ping me. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cryptic C62:

• "File:MalmöFF-Fans.JPG" is used with the caption "Fans at a home game". I'm assuming that the red-flag-toting fans are not Malmo fans, which makes the caption a wee bit misleading, especially since the red flags stand out much more than the white ones. Possible solutions: Employ a more descriptive caption, crop the image, find an image without opposing fans, or use the image somewhere else in the article where it won't matter as much.

They are indeed Malmö fans, the flag is the Flag of Scania, which is very popular with the fans. The flag is used to express regional identity, as written in the "colours and crest" section a small version of the flag of Scania is also featured on the kit, just below the neck. The image is relevant to the section and I don't see any reason to crop it. WP:CAPTIONS state that an image caption should be succinct so I doubt that such details should be added to the caption. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• When using acronyms, be sure to specify the acronym after the first usage of the full name. See this edit as an example of what I'm talking about. It may be possible that football articles have a different convention on this particular issue, so feel free to revert if I'm mistaken.

I have honestly never seen this used in a football club article. Malmö Fotbollförening and Malmö FF are used in the lead so pointing that out again in the history sectio"n seams unnecessary. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I manually reverted your edit and clarified the use of the BK Idrott acronym. That should be fine. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• The lead does not adequately summarize all of the content in the article. A common rule of thumb (which I strongly agree with) is that every major section of the article should be represented by at least one sentence in the lead. Colours and crest, Supporters and rivalries, and Media coverage are all (as far as I can tell) absent from the lead. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the logo and kits in the infobox enough to describe content from the Colours and crest section? It seems unnecessary to specify the logo and kit in the lead when you can see it right beside it. I've added two sentences to the lead concerning the Supporters and rivalries section. I'm having a hard time deciding what to add to the lead from the Media coverage section, nothing in the section seems important enough for the lead, adding a sentence like "Malmö FF have been the subject of several films." would seem out of place in my opinion. I have not seen a fotball FA with this kind of information in the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that "in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." The infobox is not the lead. The images in the infobox are not particularly useful for those users who are colorblind, employ screen readers, or use text-only mobile browsers. Regarding other football FAs, keep in mind that while existing FAs are certainly useful for giving an idea of how to construct an article, they are not perfect. The reason that you haven't seen football FAs with this type of information in the lead is simply because the reviewers at those FACs didn't notice the issue.

I've added a sentence about club colours, does that solve the problem? --Reckless182 (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Solid. I think that it would make sense to mention the movies at the end of the last paragraph of the lead, as the topic has the same general feel to it as fan clubs. Even a single sentence listing a few examples would be sufficient. Can has? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've added a sentence in the last paragraph. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans, thanks mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments - late, as ever, so my apologies (and sorry if I repeat anything from above), but comments nevertheless...

• Would suggest you bring out "association" in the "association football" link in the opening sentence, to help our non-soccer folks be sure this is about soccer, and not New Zealand football or Canadian football or whatever.

Is this necessary? Association football is linked and thus simply hovering over football will enlighten the reader. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "lost 1–0 to Nottingham Forest" would just say "English club" before Nottingham.. here, again for non-experts.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "78 million SEK " maybe asking a little to much for the lead, but can you put this into US$ or Euro perspective, again again for non-experts in Swedish crowns?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would have put the last sentence of the lead much higher up, before the records etc.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Any citations for the nicknames?

Will fix this tomorrow. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Added. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "encourage youth in " switch in "young people" for "youth" here for variety as you go on in the next sentence to say "youth team"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The club also defeated..." last club you mentioned was Helsingborgs so this is potentially confusing.

Removed "also". --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " 1924-25 season" needs an en-dash.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The club earned a ..." reiterate Malmo here.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The Malmö FF team of 1943–1944" be consistent with re-using the century, so in other words, this should be 1943–44 for internal consistency.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " next-to-last game" -> "penultimate game"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The last game of the season was won 7–0 against Halmstad BK" interesting, but relevant?

I think its a good example to illustrate how strong the 1943-44 team was. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "For the next nine years, Malmö FF finished in the top three every season." -> "For the next nine seasons, Malmo FF finished in the top three in the league."?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "in forty-nine matches, of which twenty-three were an " see no good reason for this not to be "in 49 matches, of which 23 were an"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "would prove to be crucial ingredients" sorry, this reads like a piece of sports journalism rather than an encyclopedia to me.

Perhaps, do you have any suggestions? --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The club's young talents, as well as talents bought" can we think of something better than repeating "talents"?

Changed to "young players" in first instance. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "hat constantly finished " I would normally see that as "consistently finished"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "After finishing as runners-up for the final two years of the 1960s,..." in what competition?

Added "in Allsvenskan" after runners-up. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " succeeded as Chairman in " why is chairman capitalised?

Uncapitalised. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " throughout the entire decade. The decade ended " some repetition here could be avoided.

Changed the last instance to 1990s. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Headings take a jump from 1980s to "start of 2000s".

Added 1990's to the next to last headline. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "a position they still hold" can you put a context (i.e. an "as of") here?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• No need to repeat Madsen's first name.

Removed one instance. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "148,3 million" we generally use a period as a separator in English.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "this number is excluding player" -> "this excludes player"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The most expensive player that Malmö FF have ever sold is Zlatan Ibrahimović who was sold for 86,2 million SEK to Ajax in 2001, the transfer still holds the record as the most expensive player ever sold from a Swedish football club as of 2011.[54]" - "The highest transfer fee received by Malmö FF for a player is 86.2 million SEK for ZI who was sold to Ajax in 2001. As of 2011, this is the highest transfer fee ever paid to a Swedish football club."

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "manufactures" ->"manufacturers"

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " The most noteworthy examples are..." according to whom?

Changed to "some examples". --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " an automated teller machine (ATM)." why abbreviate if you never use the abbreviation?

I agree, i wrote this as first, this was later changed by an editor in this FAC process, can't remember who. I've changed it back. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Note: flags..." can you force this to the line below the update date?

This is part of the template used for the squad, so its not something that I can change. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Would be good to know which players meet which criteria you've listed here, perhaps make a proper table out of it?

I'll get on it tomorrow. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Managing Director (Acting)" not sure why acting is capitalised.

Uncapitalised. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " the 1964–1965 European season in the European Cup and last in the 2005–2006 European" consistent year format again please.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "of the 2011-12 UEFA Champions League." en-dash needed.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The Malmö FF team of 1948–1949" date format.

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• " (Record)" why bold, why capitalised, where's the reference for each of these record claims?

Removed as I havn't sen this before in a football FA. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Gold medal is mentioned in the lead but never again. This needs to be discussed in the article.

Will do this tomorrow. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support my issues resolved, on the whole. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Final comments: Looking good, just a few more prose points but not much else. Happy to support after this.

• "Malmö FF were most successful during the 1970s, when they won five Swedish championships and four Svenska Cupen titles. The club first won Allsvenskan in 1944." Minor point, but would it make sense to reverse this info to make it chronological?

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Last four sentences in the lead begin with "the". Similarly, four of the first six sentences of the lead begin "the".

I've rephrased some of the sentences to improve flow. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The history of Malmö Fotbollförening dates back to a municipal initiative in 1905 ..." Not comfortable: Why not "The club arose from a municipal initiative..."

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Persson is regarded as": Regarded by who?

Repharsed and added source for statement. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "He led the club to two Swedish Championships in 1986 and 1988, after the club won Allsvenskan five years in a row between 1985 and 1989." Not sure that "after" makes much sense here.

Agreed, removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "...confirming it as one of the darkest moments in the history of the club." POV? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Most issues seem resolved and the prose seems OK. One other question which occured to me, but may be impossible: do the club have a known playing style, either now or in the past? My support does not depend on the answer! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Very good question. I'm fairly certain that the club were known for a defensive playing style during the 1970s but I have only been following the club since 2002 so its hard for me to tell. What I can tell you is that for the most recent seasons under Roland Nilsson the club have tried to adapt a style with focus on possession with offensive wingbacks (inspired by Ajax and Barcelona). Playing style tend to change a lot under different managers so I think its hard to find a specific style that defines Malmö FF. Something like this would be really hard to find a good source for, but if I do come across a good source in the future I will certainly try to reflect this in the article. Thanks for asking! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.