User:Msicker/Tactical History of Association Football/Dy gif Peer Review

General info
Msicker
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Msicker/Tactical History of Association Football
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Lead
The lead does a good job of introducing the article. It isn't too detailed but covers just enough information while not expanding upon it. The introductory sentence sums up what the article is going to be about. However, it doesn't have a brief description of the different sections of the article. At the end of the lead, it describes what the game of soccer is and a short explanation of how it is played. This information about how the game of soccer is played has some parts which are mentioned in the rest of the article but information such as the time limit of the game is only mentioned in the lead. I think in the review template it said not to have any information which isn't in the rest of the article, so that might be something to look at.

Content
The content within the article is very detailed and good. I like how when each tactic is mentioned it isn't as a list just describing them but rather as an example of an actual game showcasing how the tactic was implemented and triumphed over the older tactics. All content within the article is relevant to the topic. There is a section that isn't complete which is fine because this is the first draft. The article does not deal with the equality gaps. The only complaint I have is that in the basic tactics section, there are times when you say a certain tactic was utilized the best in a certain game, but then don't go into detail about the game. By adding how the tactic won the game would add another layer of depth to the article which will interest the reader.

Tone and Balance
The article's tone is neutral without any obvious bias. No claims seem to be heavily biased because any tactic that is mentioned gives an actual example of how it improved the game and beat out the older tactics. The content in no way tries to persuade the reader into certain ideas. The article is very factual and doesn't include any issues when it comes to the tone or balancing of viewpoints

Sources and References
The first problem I see with the sources is that the Inverting The Pyramid The History Of Football Tactics source is listed three different times. This usually isn't intentional because I noticed the same thing happened within my article. The majority of the sources are from books or reliable sources, the only two I would look into are goal.com and thesefootballtimes.com. I can't say if all of the content is backed up by the sources because there is little citations in the actual article. The sources seem to be fairly modern with a good amount of details. I checked a few links and they did work. The main thing I would say is that you need to cite a lot more of your article.

Organization
The organization of the content was done very well. It's good the way the article goes from football as a whole to basic tactics and then into the timeline of the more advanced and new tactics. I don't have any complaints about the organization of the article. When reading the article I couldn't find any glaring mistakes or issues.

Images and Media
The article does have an image which is a layout of one of the tactics which is mentioned in the article. The image seems to follow all Wikipedia copyright regulations and has a good description of what the image is showing. I would recommend adding a picture for each of the tactics so the reader can better visualize them.

For New Articles Only
The article met the sources requirement and has a good list of sources to pull from. The layout is similar to other Wikipedia articles so that means it has the necessary headings and subheadings. The article does link to other articles. Overall, it meets the requirements for starting a new Wikipedia article. This article is very well put together but can still be improved whether that's citing more of the article, adding more pictures, or expanding on how certain tactics won games.