Talk:FK Željezničar Sarajevo/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 19:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll pick this up. Kosack (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

 * "from its being established by a group of railway workers", sentence is a little off grammatically.
 * "playing in a 1980–81 Yugoslav Cup final" > playing in the 1980-81...
 * "In Europe, the club is most famous", be careful of using potential WP:PEACOCK terms like famous.
 * "The club is the first Bosnian team to reach the UEFA Cup semi-finals", the club was the first... Use last tense as this is not a record that can be beaten.
 * "The club has qualified for UEFA Champions League (post European Cup) as its best finish was the 2002–03 Champions League third qualifying round", this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
 * "produced many Yugoslav and Bosnian greats", another potential peacock term.

Pre-independence (1921–1992)

 * "But Željezničar was a club for the common people, people interested in football and fun", this sentence sounds almost like it comes from a promotion for the club.
 * "and even beat stronger and wealthier clubs", what makes a club stronger?
 * "and every football activity was stopped" > all football activity.
 * Some of the wording here sounds quite unencyclopaedic I wod say, particularly things like "the club that has remained a major irritant to Željezničar's fans" and "devastating influence on the club".

1971–72 Yugoslav champions

 * It's rather odd to have the league table for this campaign in the main text.

UEFA Cup 1984–85 semi-finalists

 * "Željezničar's biggest international result", I don't think biggest is the correct wording here.
 * The first sentence is also quite long and could do with splitting.

Kit manufacturers

 * Only a portion of the entries on the list are sourced.

Records

 * Why are only the record sales listed and not signings?

Players

 * Why is the multiple nationalities list necessary?

Unfortunately, I'm going to fail this article on an initial run through. The overriding issue is the lack of sourcing which is very sparse throughout, including an outstanding citation tag and several seemingly unsourced paragraphs throughout. I would also recommend a copyedit to iron out some issues with some slightly broken English and wording issues. The list above also contains a few points worth looking at before seeking another nomination. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a line. Kosack (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)