Wikipedia:Peer review/FC Bayern Munich/archive1

FC Bayern Munich
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to get it to Featured Article status.

Thanks, Kingjeff (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Any comments would be appreciated. Kingjeff (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Runfellow (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments Part 1
 * Lede


 * There may be a different precedent that I don't know about, but rather than "German sports club based in Munich, Bavaria" I would say "a sports club based in Munich, Bavaria, Germany" or something to that effect. As it is, "German sports club" implies that German describes the type of club rather than the location (sort of like "American Football team based in Canada"). I'm willing to bet most folks don't know that Bavaria is a German state rather than it's own country.
 * I'd split the first sentence after "league system". The conjunction "and" makes it go on for quite a bit there, and that's a separate thought.
 * "at its inception in 1963" could be clarified to remove the vague pronoun "its", such as "selected for the Bundesliga when the league was formed in 1963."
 * The phrase "under the leadership of Franz Beckenbauer" doesn't really tell me if he was the coach or the best player. I think you can clarify that, even if it is the lead.
 * "has a rivalry with" would probably work better as "has rivalries with"
 * The second "Bavaria" doesn't need to be wikilinked since you linked in the first.
 * Not sure if you need the full list of other sports, but that's no biggie if you want to include it.
 * History


 * The MTV 879 at first looked like an out-of-place reference, a little confusing to me. Maybe something like "a Munich gymnastics club known as MTV 1879."
 * I don't think I follow the "until the beginning of World War I" sentence. If WWI halted football activities, how did they win it? Or did they? Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like the syntax is just a bit off.
 * "were also purged." Did they leave, were they forced out, or were they persecuted directly in some way?
 * "Bayern was taunted as the "Jew's club"" By whom? Their own fans, Nazi party officials, or everyone?
 * Also, after the phrase in the point above, split the sentence. The conjunction "and" here doesn't quite work because it's two different subjects: antisemitism and amateurism.
 * "mid-table results" As a person who doesn't know a whole lot about the sport, I admit I don't know what this phrase means.
 * "In 1955 they were relegated," what were they relegated to? Another league?
 * I don't think Oberliga should be italicized, and I'd remove "in" immediately after that.
 * "at the helm of the club." I'd clarify this: Was he made the coach, general manager, or just primary owner?
 * Probably "the axis" should be put in quotes rather than italicized. Probably capitalized, too.
 * No comma after "Scottish club Rangers"
 * Awkward syntax with "slow overall progress saw Branko Zebec take over as coach". Who made the decision to replace him? That would make it clearer. For example, "but slow overall progress caused Manager X to release Coach X and replace him with Coach Y" or something to that effect.
 * Did Lattek "take charge" by becoming the coach, general manager, owner?
 * "including points gained and goals scored." Forgive me, what's the difference?
 * I'd remove "their triumph", because the later phrase "which they won..." becomes a bit awkward. This way they won the final, not the triumph.
 * "Brazilian club Cruzeiro over two legs." Sorry, I don't know this either.
 * I think "Bayerndusel" should be in quotes, not italics. Same for "FC Breitnigge"
 * Delete "just"
 * I think "lost out in the" should be "lost in the".
 * I don't know if "trophyless" is a word.
 * I doubt if they only appeared in the gossip pages "rather than the sports pages". I see the general point, but they must have still been covered in the sports pages, right?
 * "caretaker coach" This might better be phrased as "interim coach"
 * "had to take his leave for the second time." So he had other reasons to leave, or he was fired? I suspect the latter, and if so, just say it directly.
 * "Hitzfeld's reign ended in 2004, with Bayern underperforming, including a cup defeat by second division Alemannia Aachen." This is a bit confusing for me.
 * The history here starts to become more and more detailed, as often happens in modern history sections. I don't know if we really need a year-by-year account when there is a separate article already devoted to the history of the club.


 * Colours and Crest


 * The "Colours" and "Crest" sections can probably be combined, considering they are in the template for clubs. My thinking is that one larger paragraph can cover the Colours and another on Crest.


 * Stadium


 * "one of the foremost stadia in the world" I believe this, but I don't know how you measure it. Well-liked, respected, etc. but "foremost" is vague.
 * "as that of" should be just "as the"
 * "from approximately 50% to ca. 66%" Huh? 50% and 66% of what?
 * "the stadium betraying its track and field heritage" A) This is a bit of awkward syntax. If the track put viewers too far away, you can say it directly. That said, as a track runner, I can tell you that tracks aren't really that wide, relatively speaking to human eyesight. This is a common complaint, but one that doesn't really hold water with me.
 * "Located on the northern outskirts of Munich the Allianz Arena has been in use since the beginning of the 2005–06 season." If the stadium was built specifically for the purpose, I think you can definitely include a lot more information on the construction here. How much did the team pay for it? The city? Etc.


 * Supporters


 * "in recent years" For how long? And if they've always had such a large base, how come they weren't doing this since before then? Did something change?
 * "Their following is mainly recruited from the aspiring middle class and regional Bavaria." You really do need a citation for this.
 * "200 km (ca. 120 miles)" you can use Template:Convert here.
 * "Bayern Munich is also renowned for its well-organized ultra scene." Need a citation for this too, I'm afraid. Every team thinks it's fans are the best.
 * I don't think you need "the current Pope,"
 * Delete "to name just a few."

More to come later, hopefully. Runfellow (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments Part 2
 * Rivalries


 * A "1-0 aggragate"?
 * "who were the more successful" should be "which was the more successful"
 * This whole thing: "1860 is considered more working-class, and therefore suffers from a diminishing fan base in a city where the manufacturing sector is declining. Bayern is considered the establishment club,[63] which is reflected by many board members being business leaders and including the former Bavarian minister president, Edmund Stoiber" seems like an NPOV issue. I'm not sure how you could prove that.
 * I don't know if Munich's third team (SpVgg Unterhaching) deserves a paragraph if no rivalry exists.
 * Beginning of paragraph: "Bayern" shouldn't be in italics.
 * "Bayern's main rivals have been the clubs who put up the strongest fight against its national dominance." Huh?
 * Overall, this section seems to have too much detail, especially given the very large history section above. A few of the rivals, a win-loss total for the major ones, and that ought to do it.


 * Organization and finance


 * "FC Bayern München AG" shouldn't be in italics, nor should a lot of stuff in this section. If it's the name of a longer work (art, newspaper, book, etc.), use italics. Otherwise it probably shouldn't be.
 * If "Joint Stock Company" is wikilinked, there's no real reason to include ", a company whose stock are not listed on the public stock exchange"
 * A list of major sponsors seems unnecessary.
 * "As a result of Bayern's finals appearance in the 2012 UEFA Champions League" Do we really know if the value is "as a result" of this or any other event?


 * Charity


 * Honestly, I'm to the point now where I'm tired of seeing charity-type sections for every famous individual or group. Other than the part about helping struggling clubs stay afloat, because it's different from typical "charity" work (if it can be called that), just about every professional organization puts together some kind of charitable activity every few years as a P.R. move, which means it's not really notable, to be honest.


 * Other Departments


 * Here's where things start to fall apart. This section should not be divided as it is, giving every group it's own heading. If there aren't more than a few words below it, it's time to merge these together somehow.


 * Training Facilities


 * This section could probably be merged with "Stadium" in some way, or at the very least moved up to go directly beneath it.
 * "Youth academy" shouldn't be capitalized unless the entire thing is a proper noun.
 * Same thing with "Youth House"


 * General


 * This is a summary article about the history of an entire club. Unless a score is really large or different or exceptional, I don't really think it needs to be included in the article.
 * There are a ton of introductory clauses that need to be followed by a comma. Pretty much anything that begins with "In YearX," needs one. I started keeping track of these at the beginning, but lost track.
 * There are quite a few repeated wikilinks to various major championships, players, coaches, etc. Pretty much the maximum should be twice in a long article.
 * 32 of the references are from the same book. I would highly recommend the use of short footnotes to eliminate all of the repeated citations.
 * Many other sources are self-published, which is going to raise a few eyebrows in the FAC process.

In no way is this a comprehensive list, but I think it should get anyone started who wants to improve the article. Now someone better go get me a football barnstar. Runfellow (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)