Talk:1997–98 Arsenal F.C. season/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 13:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any issues in the article. However, It may not have enough "meat" in the article. I'm going to ask for a second opinion. TBrandley 20:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion reviewer:  Harrias  talk 07:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * You state that "Arsenal purchased no fewer than eight international players", but in the table below, it lists exactly eight players, and of those Boa Morte, Manniger and Upson had not yet made international appearances, while Grimandi and Mendez never have.
 * I notice that the awards at the end of the section are referenced: typically items in the lead should not be referenced as they should be referenced when they appear later in the article. I notice that this is the only mention of these awards in the article: I would suggest mentioning it again in the body of the article, and removing the references from this section.


 * Background
 * "Two draws and defeats in February moved Arsenal into fourth position; a further defeat to Liverpool at home a month earlier left Wenger ruling the club out of the title race." – I'm not quite sure if this makes sense: "a further defeat" implies something in the future, but then you state "a month earlier". Assuming you are referring to a match a month earlier, I would suggest that "a previous defeat" would be more appropriate.
 * "Arsenal beat Derby County 1–3 at.." – I know convention is that the home team's score is listed first, but I think given you are saying "Arsenal beat Derby County", it would make more sense to list Arsenal's score first.
 * For the transfers table:
 * The "In" table seems to be sorted by value, but the "Out" table doesn't seem to be sorted by anything: personally I would prefer them to be sorted by date, but I definitely think they need to be sorted by something!
 * Forcing the widths of the tables means that both of them have cells that spread across into two lines on my monitor: I would vastly prefer to have the whole row on one line than have them forced to be the same. At the minimum, I would suggest making the forced width wider, but really I think allowing it to be whatever width is natural would be best.
 * Is the "#" column the player's shirt number? This needs to be stated somewhere, and assuming it is something like that, do Boa Morte, Grimandi, Upson, Manniger and Wreh all share a number?


 * Pre-season
 * This also applies to the later "Match results" section: is it really necessary to link Arsenal on every line? I can understand the away team, but given that this isn't a sortable table, and Arsenal have already been linked in the article, I think it is unnecessary.
 * If I unlink Arsenal, I would need to unlink any team they have played more than two times that season per consistency. I'm not fussed about it being linked/unlinked, just that it seems the precedent has been set by linking teams. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference supporting the Pre-season results? I can't see one.


 * Premier League
 * "presented Leeds striker Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink the chance to equalise for the home team." – Presenting him with the "chance to equalise" is not the same as saying he actually scored: tighten this to make it clear he did equalise.
 * "leaving the striker one goal away from equalling Cliff Bastin's all-time goalscoring record." – It's worth clarifying here that it is a club record, though I know you mention it later anyway.
 * "A further draw at home to rivals Tottenham Hotspur, who impressed with defender Sol Campbell meant Arsenal ended August in fifth position." – This doesn't make much sense: maybe rephrase to "A further draw at home to rivals Tottenham Hotspur, for whom defender Sol Campbell particularly impressed, meant Arsenal ended August in fifth position."
 * "would make it "difficult" for them to catch Manchester United, but one that was not "impossible"." – A bit confused about the use of "one" here: the sentence would be much better if the second half was "United, but not impossible."
 * "Striker Nicolas Anelka, standing in for Bergkamp scored.." – Need a comma after Bergkamp.
 * "in a period where the team were blighted with injuries." – "blighted with injuries" is a bit journalistic, a more neutral "suffering with injuries" or "depleted due to injuries" would probably be better.
 * "A goal from Wright against Newcastle United – his first in seven matches, was enough to earn victory away at St James' Park." – You start the clause with an endash, and complete it with a comma: be consistent here, and either use an endash in both places, or a comma in both places: I'd prefer simply commas myself.
 * "denting their chances of catching up on leaders Manchester United." – replace "on" with "with", or rephrase it to "..chances of closing the gap on leaders.."
 * "The match was overshadowed by Wright being booed off by supporters, who responded by appearing "at the window of the east stand clad in vest and underpants haranguing the crowd." – Why was Wright booed off the pitch? Some expansion on this would be useful.
 * "A further two wins in February, both at home to Chelsea and Crystal Palace; defender Gilles Grimandi scored the winner in the latter match to take Arsenal into second place, nine points behind Manchester United, albeit having played two games less." – Not keen on this sentence at all; it attempts to do too much in my opinion. The simplest solution is to cut out the bit about Grimandi scoring: "A further two wins in February, at home to Chelsea and Crystal Palace, moved Arsenal into second place, nine points behind Manchester United, albeit having played two games less."
 * "They did however close the gap to six points, the following match after Manchester United only managed to draw at West Ham." – This doesn't really work for me; how about "The following match, they closed the gap to six points, after Manchester United could also only manage to draw against West Ham."
 * "A goal from Christopher Wreh in the rescheduled match at Wimbledon was enough to move Arsenal into second.." – There was no mention in the article that they had fallen back to third?
 * "set up a title clash between themselves and Manchester United on Saturday." – The full date would be useful here; Saturday isn't particularly useful.
 * "Two 1–0 wins, first at home to Sheffield Wednesday and then Bolton Wanderers meant Arsenal now kept an eighth successive clean sheet, a new league record." – This isn't "now": the sentence would work with this word simply deleted.
 * "helped Arsenal to thrash Blackburn Rovers" – "thrash" is not encyclopaedic language.
 * "after thrashing Wimbledon by five goals to nil." – And again.
 * "Victory to Barnsley and four days later at home to Derby County meant Arsenal now needed.." – In each case, "against" would work better than "to". And again, the "now" should be removed.
 * "Although Bergkamp was ruled out for the rest of the season having injured himself against Derby.." – "remainder" would work better than "rest", and "having injured himself" makes it sound like he did it intentionally: try "having sustained an injury against Derby"
 * "Arsenal strolled to a 4–0 win against Everton.." – Again, in this usage, "strolled" is not encyclopaedic: try "eased".
 * "in memorable fashion" – this is a little PEACOCKy.
 * "A run of ten straight victories – a new record, was set, and Wenger became the first foreign manager to lead a team to win the league championship." – Given that the Premier League is an English competition, technically Scottish managers are foreign, so it is worth clarifying that he was the first non-British manager (I assume no Irish managers had won?)
 * None of the "report" links in the Match results work for me. If the pages have been deleted, you'll need to remove these, and if they are providing the references for the matches, you'll need to find alternative references, or all the results will be uncited. It looks like the website has restructured, so most likely the pages are still there, just with different addresses.
 * You need to add the purple colour for the postponement to the Key.


 * FA Cup
 * "the game was to be replayed at Vale Park, eleven days after." – The tenses dance a little here: it works as the simpler "the game was replayed at Vale Park, eleven days later." or if you want "the game had to be replayed at Vale Park, eleven days later."
 * "Goals from Anelka and Bergkamp ensured victory, with an understrength Arsenal team." – I think this would work better as "Goals from Anelka and Bergkamp ensured victory for an understrength Arsenal team."
 * Link "toe-poke" to Toe punt.
 * "Anelka scored in the second half, through a pass from Parlour to settle the match." – "from" rather than "through".
 * "Wenger praised "remarkable" Overmars" – Should be "Wenger praised the "remarkable" Overmars".
 * Not a biggie, but given they didn't lose in the FA Cup, you can remove the "Red colour = loss" from the Key!
 * Same issue as above with the match report links (and again in the League Cup section).


 * UEFA Cup
 * "Arsenal entered the UEFA Cup first round, having finished third in the league, the previous season." – No need for the second comma.


 * Player statistics
 * Per MOS:FLAG the flag image should be accompanied by the country name: I see that this is a template, so this is clearly something that needs discussion at WP:FOOTBALL to resolve rather than here.
 * Have reverted the table to its inital form, I'm not sure why it was changed in the first place.


 * The table requires a reference, both for the statistics, and for the players listed as being in the reserves.
 * Ref added is Andy Kelly's resource website, he is the club historian just to clear up WP:RS.


 * References
 * The print references should be expanded out to include publisher and location details.
 * Have added publishers but location details are ambiguous; as far as I'm aware of it refers to the city of publication and as the majority of The Guardian match reports cited were published on Monday, it's hard to tell if they were written at the stadiums or the offices.

With regards to TBrandley's concern that there may not be enough "meat" in the article, I have no such concerns: I think the article deals with the subject well, in a generally balanced and well scoped manner. The issues I list are primarily minor copy-edit like changes that are refining the article. Nice work!  Harrias  talk 09:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thorough review. All corrections done unless stated. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice speedy work on rectifying the issues I raised, a very good piece of work, and I'm happy to make it a very Good piece of work. Given that TBrandley had no over-powering concerns with the article, I'll will pass the article, well done!  Harrias  talk 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)