Wikipedia:Peer review/Sunderland A.F.C./archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sunderland A.F.C.[edit]

I would seriously like this article to be peer reviewed so I can decide what needs done for the article and therefore improve it and get it to featured article status. I really take pride in this football club and I would like the article too aswell. Eaomatrix 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First and foremost, the article needs a lot more citations for any material which could potentially be challenged, preferably formatted using templates such as {{cite web}}. Done - Cited.
  • Merge the facts mentioned in the Trivia section elsewhere or remove them (see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles). Done - Trivia removed.
  • Get rid of the section listing famous fans, the consensus for many other football club articles has been to remove such sections. Done - Gone.
  • Prune the external links section by removing links to forums and blogs (see Wikipedia:External links).Done - Down to 3.
  • What criteria have been used for the list of notable players? Done - List now exists for them.
  • The Grounds section deserves to have a few paragraphs of prose instead of a laundry list. Done
  • Remove minor roles from the list of staff. Done - Removed.
  • Description of honours won should form part of the History section, and does not need restating under the list of honours. Done - Deleted part under list of honours.
  • Some sections (Colours, Rivalries) are stubbish and could do with expansion. Consider merging Rivalries and Fanzines to make a Supporters section. Done
  • Only one sentence for three league titles in a decade?
  • Some pedantry: Stoke City were simply named Stoke F.C. in the 19th century. Done - Changed.
  • For general pointers about what sort of work is required to get the article to featured status, look at some of the existing featured football articles. A few further tips are given at User:Oldelpaso/On Football.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Avoid abbreviations like WWII & WW2 - it's more pleasant reading to see Second World War. Done
  • Absolutely per Oldelpaso, three citations for an article like this is inadequate. Check out Ipswich Town F.C. or Arsenal F.C. to get a feel for the level of citation required for a featured article. Done - Much more thoroughly cited.
  • Check out WP:DASH for your references to seasons, so instead of 1935-36, use 1935–36. Done
  • "...described by many as the greatest save at Wembley, and by some even as the greatest save of all time." - this is original research unless you can find something to verify the claims. Done - Sourced through book.
  • I would like to see some images other than club badges. Done - Added more.
  • The ref in Colours should be cited using the Cite web template, same with chairmen ref and managers ref. Done - Everything is Cite web now.
  • "...neither of the latter two clubs takes this anywhere near as seriously as the Tyne-Wear derby..." - needs citation or rewording to be encyclopaedic and neutral point of view. Done - That section no longer exists.
  • Honours table, see other FA's for general style, all sub-sections look like bullet lists without bullets - make them into decent prose. Done
  • I prefer to split the out-on-loan table so there's no awkwardly long player column.
  • Best to include ...correct as of... with manager stats. Done

As per Oldelpaso, hope this helps. The Rambling Man 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Qwghlm[edit]

Agree with The Rambling Man and Oldelpaso, especially on more citations, more free images and removal of the trivia section.

  • "football league" and "first/second/third division" should be capitalised. "F.A. Cup" should become "FA Cup". Done
  • One-line paragraphs in History section should be merged. Done
  • What was the Andrew McCombie scandal of 1904? It should be mentioned if important. Done
  • "amazing double save", "stunning volley" just two examples of POV language in the History section - all should be purged.
  • The fact Roy Keane was told his team were promoted while walking his dog is quite possibly the most banal trivia I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Get rid of it. Done - Gone.
  • History section far too recentist - half of it covers the period 1990-present, grossly distorted compared to the preceding 100 years. Done - Got rid of too recent stuff.
  • Details & images of the crests could be put into a separate section. Done
  • No proof that Image:Roker park aerial.jpg has all rights released, and in any case could be replaced with a free image.
  • "but perhaps the most popular currently" - speculative, unsourced. Done - Gone.
  • Top flight/Second flight etc. subsections of Honours section should be merged into the History section, really, it is just needless repetition here. Done
  • Consider splitting off the Records section into its own article and replacing it with a brief summary. Done
  • Trim the list of coaches and staff, and consider turning it into a table. Done
  • List of chairmen could be turned into a table too. Comment - I removed it, as I felt it was pretty trivial.
  • Grounds section should be turned into prose. Done

Hope this helps. Qwghlm 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

I think the guys above have covered most things I was going to pick up on, but I'll add the following:

  • AFAIK general consensus amongst WP:FOOTBALL editors is that "famous supporters" sections are non-encyclopedic and should be binned. If it stays it needs more citations - I find it extremely hard to believe that Olga Korbut is a Sunderland fan (assuming that isn't vandalism)....
  • "Trivia" section definitely has to go, facts mentioned in this section should be incorporated into the main text of the article (with appropriate citataions, which are currently missing), if any can't be incorporated then get rid of them
  • "Notable players" section is a bit dicey as there's no indication of what criteria were used to select the names listed. If it was based on, for example, a certain number of appearances then that needs to be explicitly stated. If it's just a list of names that one or more editors put in because they think they're considered "club legends" then that's original research and has to go.
  • "Managerless" is spelt wrong in the table
  • The bulk of the "top flight"/"second flight"/etc sub-sections of the "Honours" section is not written in complete sentences and reads like a series of text messages
  • Plus generally lots more references are needed.....

Hope this helps ChrisTheDude 11:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Sunderland_A.F.C./archive1&oldid=239919375"