Wikipedia:Peer review/FC Barcelona in Europe/archive2

FC Barcelona in Europe
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review, and I want to get feed-back whether this should be listed in List of FC Barcelona records and statistics or be an independent article. Previous discussion showed disagreement between two users and no consensus. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 17:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 17:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am not a football person, though I have a basic understanding of the game, so I am not the best person to decide if this should be an independent article. I did not see the discussion of this on the article's talk page. It seems to me that the two best palces to discuss this would be the WikiProject Football talk page and the FLC talk page. I would start the discussion in one place and leave a notice pointing to it at the other. In general PR is not a place for dispute resolution - sorry. I can make comments on the article, which seems very detailed and comprehensive - thanks for you work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD says that the bold face words from the title of the article should not also be linked.
 * Done! Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It also says The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1] The first sentence for this article is currently FC Barcelona is a professional football club based in Barcelona, Spain. which tells the reader nothing about the "in Europe" part of the title.
 * re-wrote lead.
 * The prose could use a copyedit - just in the lead the article is not consistent on whther FC Barcelona is a singular or plural noun The club was [singular] created in 1899, and have [plural - has if singular] participated in regional and domestic competitions since 1901, and in international competitions since the Pyrenees Cup in 1910. They [plural] have won...
 * discretionary plural I believe. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but most of the section headers are not mentioned in the lead.
 * re-wrote
 * While I generally like History sections, I also think that each table would be clearer if there were a brief introduction before it that explained what the cup(s) were / are, etc.
 * Re-organised layout
 * The section "UEFA competitions and Fair's Cup" in History does not mention the Fair's Cup at all. I also note that it is spelled "Fairs Cup" later in the article - which is it?
 * spelling fixed!
 * In the same section, the last pargraph needs a ref.
 * I am a bit puzzled by the level of detail or lack thereof in History. For example in the UEFA competitions and Fair's Cup section, there is a whole paragraph on the first Europe Cup tournament they were in, a sentence on the next one, one sentence on the next three, and one sentence on 15 UEFA Champions League appearances!
 * Re-written, thanks! Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also note that the History is organized differently than the tables - so the History starts with early years and the Latin Cup, then talks about UEFA competitions and Fair's Cup, but the tables start with UEFA and do not mention the Copa Latina.
 * Re-organised. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also note that the History says both the Copa Latina and the Fairs Cup are not considered official by UEFA, but the tables list one (Fairs) and not the other (Latina). Why? I can see listing both or neither, but why just one?
 * Again I am not a football person, so it took me a while to figure out that A was Away and H was Home in the title. I think some sort of explanatory note would help.
 * Added in lede. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The tables are not especially wide on my monitor - I think I would add actual notes to the Notes column, and not just the cryptic letter footnotes. I think it would help to have "Won on the away goals rule." in the table (and there seems to be room for it). I also think that when they lost, it might help to say so.
 * TBH, the tables are quite wide on my screen and on portable devices that would look horrible. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Finals and Semi-finals tables seem to be needless repetition to me. If this is standard Football MOS stuff, ignore me ;-)
 * Semifinals away, and I'm inclined to axe finals as well. None is MOS. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely there could be some images here?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * More comments
 * I like the rearranged tables and History, thanks.
 * I still think it would look better and follw the MOS if there were a lead image
 * Needs to be consistent in table headers etc. For example, is it Opposing Team or Opposition (both are used, I prefer Opposing Team)
 * This really needs a copyedit to polish the prose before it is up at FLC.
 * All addressed, even copyedited the best i can :) Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 20:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)