User:Msicker/Tactical History of Association Football/Khyamamoto Peer Review

General info
This is a peer review of the article, "Tactical History of Association Football" by user Msicker.
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Lead Section
 * I feel that this lead section's first paragraph and the final section of its second paragraph are a good lead and introduction to this topic. I think that the specifics explained in the majority of the second paragraph could be seen as "excessive" and can either be removed or placed in another section of the article. Overall the lead section gives a good introduction to the topic but can be made a bit more precise.
 * Content
 * I think a lot of the content within this article is very thorough and seems credible. However, for the sake of an article that specifically focuses on the history of tactics, and not tactics themselves, I think some of the sections could be seen as excessively long, or may not belong entirely. For example, I think the "Basics of Tactics in Football" section has information that would be better suited to the overall "Tactics" article on Wikipedia. I think the most important and relevant section of this article to the topic is the "The Development of Tactics Over Time" section, as it shows how tactics changed, not just broadly explaining what tactics are and their goals. I like how you explain how the game changed and how tactics both evolved around game changes, as well as caused them.
 * Tone and Balance
 * I think the tone and balance of this article is good, and presents things with an informational tone. I think that if there is one thing that could be changed, I would change the title of the section "Italy's Defensive Dominance," as that could be seen as a biased statement. The content of that section is done well and is less biased, but I think that the section could be called "the Catenaccio formation" or some other title.
 * Sources and References
 * The content of the article seems to be sourced fro reliable sources, such as books or reputable sites for football information. However, I feel that some of the sentence provide information or make claims that are unattributed. Statements like "The Austrian national team of the 1930s dominated European football through a similar style to the Uruguayan National team, utilizing quick passing to out-pace opposing sides," from the "The Development of Tactics Over Time" section are sweeping claims that I feel could be attributed to another source. The sources used seem comprehensive, and there are probably other books on tactics that can be cited to ensure that Wikipedia remains a tertiary source of information from published sources and does not contain original ideas.
 * Organization
 * This article is formatted very well. I think the order of the sections makes the article easy to read, and it is logical to have the history of tactics over time be placed in chronological order. I liked the use of sub-headings within different sections.
 * Images and Media
 * I like the image used to explain the WM strategy, as it helped me to understand it better. If anything, I think it would greatly benefit the reader if there were more diagrams that clearly lay out the strategies that are explained.
 * Other
 * As this is the creation of a new article, I think the sources used show that this is a notable topic worthy of an article on Wikipedia. I think it may rely a bit heavily on the "Inverting the Pyramid" source, but I think there can be more exhaustive use of sources to make sure the whole picture is captured. Overall this article is very thorough and only needs a few changes to its content to be more concise.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Msicker/Tactical History of Association Football
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)