Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Sunderland A.F.C./archive3

History of Sunderland A.F.C.

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. Right, I'm gearing this article up for FAC, where I'm aiming to finish the future FTC. I'd like thorough review to remove any problems. Please point out prose points, but I will likely ask someone to run over the article after for a copyedit anyway. Fire away. :) Thanks. Sunderland06  (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll endeavour to have a proper look over this later, but one quick thing that jumps out - the refs section needs to be re-organised. The section should simply be headed "References" and have the books, etc. first under a subheading of "General", followed by the inline cites under the subheading "Specific" (see for example Gillingham F.C. records).  Currently you've got things like "Days p100" but you have to scroll much further down to find out what "Days" actually is....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed this to the style of the Gillingham records Reference section. Sunderland06  (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: It's an interesting football history, but at pesent there are many problems with the prose. The following long list relates only to the lead and first section. I have also done some tidying of commas and some small fixes, but really the article needs a full copyedit. Most of the points I raise are quite minor in themselves, it's just that there are so many of them.
 * Lead
 * At present the lead is too short to be a summary of the whole article, and will need to be expanded, but I suggest you deal with the prose issues first.
 * "Sunderland played "solely" in the FA Cup." Is this literally true? So that if they were knocked out in Round 1, they played no more football that year? I imagine they must have played in local league competitions, or perhaps they played a series of friendlies. Whatever the case, you need to clarify what you mean by "solely". Done - I've cleared this up.
 * Early years etc
 * The opening, "Sunderland were founded..." etc, is a bit awkwardly phrased. Personally, I would rephrase, losing the intrusive mdashes, to something like: "Sunderland AFC began life as "Sunderland & District Teachers Association Football Club", founded in 1879 by James Allan, a teacher at Hendon Board School. His object was to provide "recreational amusement" for the area's schoolteachers." Done - Changed to that.
 * Is "all blue" really a "sharp" contrast to red-and-white, or is it simply different? Suggest delete "sharp" Done - Removed sharp.
 * Blue House Field should not be italicised Done - Removed italics.
 * Their first ground wasn't a change, so I suggest you should say they would change their home "four times", rather than "four more times" Done - Removed "more".
 * In 1881 "the club's name" rather than "their name" Done - Changed to that.
 * I don't think you need to link "Scotsmen". Can you say in what way these players were "internationals"? Had they all been capped by Scotland, or were they merely the club's first players from outside England? Done - Changed to "internationally capped".
 * Say when Allen left the club, and if it was this that led to the appointment of the club's first manager Done - I've added when he left, but there isn't really any information on why he was appointed.
 * Sunderland joined the Football League in time for the 1890–91 season." That's a bit sudden. What was the background to their joining the league? Presumably it was some reflection of their perceived abilities, but we need a little more history here. Done - More detailed.
 * "Sunderland's admission to the league effectively made them the "thirteenth" team in English football." I don't see much value in this sentence. Readers won't necessarily know that the League was founded by 12 clubs, and I don't see much point in telling them now. I would simply lose the sentence. Done - Removed.
 * "The Football League should be "the Football League" (no capital T). Reference to "the league" should be to "the League", throughout. Done
 * Preston North End should be wikilinked
 * The painting shouldn't be labelled "famous" as that is opinion. Just delete "famous" (I'm not saying it isn't famous, just that it's not encyclopedic language to say so). Done - Deleted famous.
 * I've put a "fact" tag against the apparently uncited assertion that Hemy's painting was the first ever of a football league match. Presumably you can easily supply the citation. Done - I misread this in my book, changed to "one of the earlist recorded".
 * "They completed three league titles..." – "Sunderland completed three league titles..." Done - Changed.
 * "...when they finished above Everton." – well, they presumably finished above everyone. Done - Removed that part.
 * I don't think "Championship of the World" should be italicised Done - Removed italics.
 * Give year of Watson's resignation, rather than attaching it to his replacement's arrival. Done - Added season.
 * It doesn't seem to me that Sunderlad "suffered" a financial irregularity, rather that they committed one. I suggest the opening sentence is rewritten as: "In 1904 Sunderland were involved in a financial irregularity, in which the club's board of directors gave their right back Andy McCombie £100 (£ today) to start a business, with the view that his benefit game would enable him repay the money." Done - Changed to that.
 * "Additionally, the records of Sunderland showed financial irregularities, and so violated the rules of the game." I suggest this is simplified to "The club's records showed further breaches of the League's financial rules." Done - Changed to that.
 * Grammar problem with the second half of this sentence: "McCombie would go on to sign for Newcastle United, and help towards their spell of league success of the era." Done - Changed to "McCombie would go on to sign for Newcastle United, and help towards their spell of league success.".
 * "In 1905 they were involved..." "They" needs to be specified. Done - Changed to "Sunderland".
 * The 9–1 victory against Newcastle appears only to equal their record League win. Didn't they earlier beat West Bromwich by the same score? Comment - The West Brom score was a mistake, it was actually 8-1, I've corrected this now.
 * "one of the first clubs to win the league and cup double" - there can only be one "first" club to win the double. Do you mean "one of the few clubs..." etc ? Done
 * General point: I'm not sure it's necessary to give the updated value of every individual sum you mention. It rather tends to spoil the prose flow...bu I'm sure someone else will say the opposite, so it has to be your call.

If you can deal with the above I'll be happy to continue with the review. If it's OK with you, in future I will make general fixes as I go, rather than listing them for you to fix. It'll save a lot of time. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

PS please ping my talkpage when you want me to look again, as I can't watch all the peer reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(Later): I have copyedited up to 1959. It may be a day or two before I can continue. Meantime:-
 * Please give the date for McGregor's comment about Sunderland being the team of all the talents.
 * Also give the date of Sunderlands friendly victory of League champions Preston
 * You need to say more about the "dispute" involving Buchan and Clunas being called up for international duty. Why do you call this a dispute? Were there heated arguments, threats etc?
 * The Broadis story likewise needs expanding. What do you mean when you say the player transferred himself? In those days players' transfers were entirely at the behest of the club, the individuals having little or no say in the transaction.
 * £458 thousand should be written as £458,000. You should change all similar money values to this notation.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have finished copyediting this article, except for the last paragraph of the last section, which is a jumble of often undated facts and really needs to be rethought. In the main article there are numerous no-break space violations which need to be fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)