Wikipedia:Peer review/Chelsea F.C./archive1

Chelsea F.C.
Considering making this a FAC. Just want to see if this article needs anything more.Buc 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is very good, close to FA standard. **Bates finally reunited the stadium freehold with the club by doing a deal with the banks of the property developers, who had been bankrupted by a market crash **Stamford Bridge was designed for the Mears family by the noted football architect Archibald Leitch **if someone tries to move the football club to a new stadium they could not use the name. *Remove the list of minor club officials
 * There are a few things requiring citations:
 * over-ambitious redevelopment of the stadium...threatened the financial stability of the club
 * The phrase The new Chelsea side, epitomised by cult hero Peter Osgood - talented, stylish and occasionally self-destructive - oozed charisma and class oozes hyperbole, epitomised by the use of peacock terms.
 * This may be more something for the talk page, but I think the Supporters section overplays the strength of rivalries with other clubs. For example, I wouldn't regard Chelsea as having a fierce rivalry with Arsenal or Spurs, as their principle rivalry is with each other rather than Chelsea. That various clubs are mentioned is more indicative of a lack of a strong rivalry with any one club. The final paragraph confuses high profile individual matches with enduring rivalries. One thing which isn't mentioned that could be is accusations of "buying the title" and ill-will arising from that. e.g.

Other than that the article is pretty much there, I look forward to giving my support on FAC soon. Oldelpaso 12:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, a few minor issues: *"...narrowly missed out on winning the title in 1964-65" - third place, five points behind (under 2 points for a win) is not narrow, in my opinion. *"...something deemed as necessary for Chelsea to compete with their rivals. - more weasel words. *I agree with Oldelpaso that the rivalry with other London clubs is a bit overplayed, and could be replaced with a single sentence, and I don't think Chelsea have much of a rivalry with Liverpool or Man U - the phrase could be added to the list is a weasel-worded way of saying so and suggests it cannot be backed up.  *Notable former players needs some objective and agreed criteria for inclusion; it is maybe worth just getting rid of and having the player of the year awards only.  *No need for such a long list of club personnel.  *FA Youth Cup is a minor competition not contested by the first team and should be removed from Honours.  *Cup Winners Cup succession boxes should be removed (sets a dangerous precedent)  *"International Record" is a bit crufty, Chelsea F.C. seasons is a better place for such information. Qwghlm 17:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The usual confusion of singular/plural - use one or the other and stick to it.
 * The colourised 1950s picture is probably not compatible with Wikipedia's copyrights policy.
 * "Bates proved to be a real fighter as chairman" - unencyclopaedic tone, needs a citation.
 * "earning a reputation for playing "Sexy Football"" - weasel-worded, uncited.
 * "...which is widely seen by fans as one of the worst ever." - needs citation. Also remove the following sentence about the Chelsea site, although feel free to include it as a reference or further reading at the foot of the page.
 * Managers' statistical records would be a nice addition.

Did what is now striked. Also added citation notes where requested. BTW are you aware "Sexy Football" is refrence to something the then manager Ruud Gullit once said.Buc 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed - although Gullit said it as a TV pundit during Euro 96, and not in reference to his own team. Chelsea played some good football under Gullit but they also did so under Vialli and Hoddle; the "sexy football" is more popular mythology than a proper critical description. Qwghlm 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sexy football" is only an informal term, more or less unverifiable, and imo can be removed altogether.
 * Re the 1955 picture. I've tagged it as PUI, but the uploader says that it is not copyrighted. The issue should be resolved in the next few days. I've added a few more citations and will try to add the rest. SteveO 19:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There's not much point in having a seperate page for managers and listing ALL the managers in the main article as well. I'd cut some of them like Sheffield Wednesday F.C. HornetMike 19:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that aliases/nicknames should be bold, but I'm not 100% sure. WP:MOS might have further info. Another point of contention is in your referencing. The first two references are for a Brian Glanville, and two different articles. After that, references simply say "Glanvill (2006) pp. XXX". A)His name is consistently misspelt and B) it's unclear which article is being referred to. I don't know what to advise to rectify this, but it's a big hurdle. Seegoon 17:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The 'Glanvill' citations are for Rick Glanvill's Chelsea FC: The Official Biography - The Definitive Story of the First 100 Years (ISBN 0-7553-1466-2), which is in the references. It's an unfortunate coincidence that works by Brian Glanville are also cited, but surely it's not necessary to write the full details of the book in each footnote. Perhaps write it once and then put op cit?
 * I've also removed the 'sexy football' and 'widely seen as the worst ever' comments. SteveO 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. You'd not think it such a popular name for football journalists specialising in Chelsea. Maybe it's a family tradition and one of them is dyslexic. Seegoon 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be worth adding initials (R. Glanvill and B. Glanville) to their surnames in the references, just to make it clearer. Incidentally it's unlikely they're related as Brian Glanville's real surname is Goldberg, from what I recall. Qwghlm 12:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've followed Qwghlm's suggestion and Glanvill's initial to the references. SteveO 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Once the issue with the 1955 team photo is resloved I'm going to make this a FAC.Buc 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)