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

A.F.C. Wimbledon
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to see how high it could get on the quality scale.

Thanks,

Sunderland06 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC) My comments
 * ✅ done please refer to football clubs as either 'it' or 'they' and stick to the same throughout
 * actually what you've done isn't what I meant, having the name of the club sometimes is good. I was refering to statements like 'The club places great emphasis on its role' & 'The Dons' success in 2004-05 was not limited to their senior side'. There are lots more. You can either refer to the club as a single entity 'it' or as a collection of people 'they' but if you keep flitting between the 2 it gets confusing. JMiall  ₰  23:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ done 'agreed to allow the owners of their club to relocate' - could this just say 'agreed to allow Wimbledon FC to relocate'? at present it is slightly confusing
 * ✅ cited done 'their traditional local support dried up almost immediately in a ground-swell of popular protest against the move.' - this is potentially POV and so needs a citation. There are other statements like this, some work definitely needs doing on improving the referencing
 * ✅ done 'leaving AFC Wimbledon as the sole bearer of the "Wimbledon" name' - what about AFC Wimbledon Ladies?
 * ✅ done 'the ground they shared with Kingstonian' - 'share'?
 * sort out minor typos
 * ✅ deleted pre honours done why are the Wimbledon FC honours in the article? Those honours do not belong to AFC Wimbledon, they are not the same club, they are a new club with many of the same supporters from the same area. JMiall  ₰  22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In a similar vein, the multiple dates of foundation need to be removed, AFC Wimbledon have no legal claim to having been founded in 1889 ChrisTheDude 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope they help. The Rambling Man 11:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * A lot of work needed on the manual of style, e.g. WP:DASH should be visited for advice on how to use the en-dash for scores, year ranges etc. See also WP:HEAD - for section headings.
 * ✅ done I don't like the season-by-season break-down - look at other club articles for guidance (e.g. Arsenal F.C., Norwich City F.C.) and base you article on those, even for GA.
 * See WP:CITE for where to put citations, and try to use Cite web which provides an easy template with free, consistent formatting of data for each citation.
 * ✅ done replaced with relatively "...astonishingly ..." - avoid Point of View terms.
 * ✅ done "Enfield Town 2-1]];[14] " - copyedit required, stray pair of brackets.
 * A heading like "Why "AFC?"" isn't appropriate - it'd be better to add that information into a History section or similar.
 * ✅ done Why are some players red linked? Are they any more significant than those that aren't?  If not, remove linkage.
 * Club records need to be written as prose and cited.
 * ✅ done Scrap 90% of the external links per WP:EL.