Wikipedia:Peer review/History of FC Barcelona/archive1

History of FC Barcelona
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review to get some feedback on whether this is a good summary of the clubs history, should it be longer or shorter in certain areas? Should I write it a bit more different than the corresponding section on FC Barcelona? Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Knowing nothing of the club's history except what this article tells me, I don't see anything missing. The intersection of sport and politics makes the article more interesting, I think, than a simple rundown of scores, championships, players and coaches would be. I don't think overlap with companion articles matters much as long as this article is internally coherent, which this one largely is. That said, the article could use yet another proofing. I noticed and fixed some small errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax, and I note some others below. However, I don't think I caught them all, so another run-through by a native speaker of English who likes proofreading would be a good idea. Here are my other suggestions:


 * The lead is quite short for an article of this size. If you can imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you can probably see what would make sense to add. Generally, the lead should summarize the whole article and include enough detail to make the article inviting. You'd like for a reader who reads the lead to think, "Gosh, this sounds interesting; I must read the rest".

Birth of FC Barcelona (1899–1922)


 * The head, "Birth of FC Barcelona (1899–1922)" would be better if shortened to "Birth (1899–1922)" to avoid repeating the article title.


 * "placed an advert in Los Deportes" - "Advert" is slang; "advertisement" would be better. Also, names of newspapers like Los Deportes should appear in italics.


 * "there has been different theories to the origin of those colours, but in Catalunia" - "There have been" rather than "there has been" since "theories" is plural. Also, should Catalunia be Catalonia?


 * "in order to save the club from folding" - "Folding" is slang. Would "disbanding" be better? Or "going out of business"?


 * "One of his main achievements was to help Barça acquire its own stadium" - Should Barça be explained here? It seems to be a nickname for Barcelona.


 * "For many fans participating in the club had less to do with the game itself and more with being a part of the clubs collective identity." - Insert a comma after "fans"? Also, "clubs" should be changed to the possessive, "club's".


 * "The match was against local side Terrassa, and was won 6–2." - Which team won?


 * "This saw the club's fortunes begin to improve on the field." - Maybe "After he was hired, the club's fortunes... "?

Rivera, Republic and Civil War (1923–1957)
 * "inspired by the heroic performance of the Barcelona keeper" - Should "keeper" be linked or explained? I assume it means "goalkeeper".

his murder is seen as a defining moment... ".
 * "Being dubbed the martyr of barcelonisme, the murder was a defining moment in the history of FC Barcelona and Catalan identity." - Suggestion: "He was dubbed the martyr of barcelonisme, and


 * "He 'reminded' them that they were only playing due to the 'generosity of the regime'." - The Manual of Style suggests using double quotes rather than single quotes in most situations. If these two quoted phrases are direct quotations, they need in-line citations to the source(s).

Núñez and the stabilization years (1978–2000)


 * "The group, identified with a left-wing separatism, repeatedly demanded the resignation of Núñez and openly defied through chants and banners on matches." - Openly defied whom or what?


 * "At the same time Barcelona experienced an eruption in skinheads" - Link or explain "skinheads"?


 * "the 1992 European Cup final at Wembley with a legendary free kick goal" - "Legendary" seems excessive.


 * "both causing fractions within the group and a sudden support for Núñez's presidency" - Maybe "which caused divisions within the group... "?

References
 * A bibliographic entry for a book should include the place of publication.

Images
 * File:Alberti002.jpg is an excellent image, but is the photographer really Nemo, who took the photo in 1978? If not, does someone else hold the copyright? If the licensing turns out to be OK, the image would look better on the left with Alberti looking into the page.
 * We have to assume good faith. Copyright issues is a real killer, so when I find a free pic on commons I really don't want to be dragged into it. A PfD would be the way. When I upload pictures it's only fair that I follow the rules, but researching images is a real pain. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 08:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All taken care of, thanks for the review! Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 08:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)