Wikipedia:Peer review/Korona Kielce/archive1

Korona Kielce
the article is A Class in my opinion and the mid importance Bartekos 12:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Three big points. Way too much overkill in using images as bullet points, and with section headers, etc.  You use the team crest in the infobox, it shouldn't be used everywhere.  It smacks of fanaticism. Second.  The entire article needs to be referenced per WP:CITE with Reliable sources that are Verifiable. The writing could be fixed up, it's rather lacking in being "compelling".  It's loaded with a lot of language emphasizing that Korona Kielce is "the greatest" "an ideal", etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam without any other substance.  Thus is does not comply with WP:NPOV and is a page plagued by rampant boosterism. The You Tube links in the "External links" section exemplify this rampant boosterism and should be removed.  This article is quite far from "A-Class".  In fact, excluding the boosterism and focusing on substantive material, the article might just have a stub-worthy quality to it. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT you have written that there are words like: "the greatest" and "an ideal". I’d checked it for you.

Word “great/the greatest” is in sentences:
 * “By first three decades of existence, the club could not be praised with greatest sports progress”. It is negative not positive sentence.
 * “Despite great determination, local government have shown in building of stadium…”. I have checked it. Budget of local government in 2005 was 570.756.041 zł. Stadium cost about 50.000.000 zł. so it was almost 10%. Of course, after stadium was ended state government and ministry of sport paid back some costs. But it took them a year or two, before they did it, so as you see, it was a great determination of local government.
 * “Small toy - for child great windfall” it’s the name of action that was made by a fans organization. The action consist on collecting toys for children from orphanage.

The word “ideal” was in sentence:
 * “Korona is recognized by football players in Poland as an ideal place for deployment their talent”. But how would you called a club that has been building its squad by buying 2nd, 3rd and 4th division players, and has been fighting for first place in Premier League? How would you called a club that take some unknown player (Grzegorz Piechna) from 3rd or 4th division and made him a best striker in a Premier League? How would you called a club that bought defender from 2nd division (Paweł Golański) and in a year have made him one of the best defenders in Poland? (It’s a fact not a piece of gossip. Paweł Golański is a first squad player in Polish national football team. He was also called, by Polish press, one of the biggest football discoveries of year 2006.) So, that do you think, is it possible that Polish football players recognized Korona as “an ideal place for deployment their talent” or not?

In my opinion Korona Kielce is a mid importance, A Class article.

Have a nice day, all of you people :)

Misiekuba 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This article would be A-class only if it were well-referenced by reliable sources, if the writing actually said something beside "Korona is a great team." and other boostership. If you substantiated it with sources (like critical reviews by newspapers, books, etc.) then maybe it'll be passable.  But right now it's a sentimental POV praise-fest/cheerleading article from an obvious team fan.  Also, on the face, it's not well-written at all, written as if English is not the author's primary language, being loaded with bad grammar, sentence fragments, incorrect subject-verb agreeement, and terrible spelling errors. Examples:
 * "In 2002 the bright era in Korona had come." (empty rhetoric, boosterism, pretty language)
 * "The goal was simple - to be the best polish football team. The dream became reality" (again, empty rhetoric, boosterism)
 * "The club was funded in 1973 by connecting of 2 clubs from Kielce - Iskra and SHL." (Do you mean "funded" or "founded"?)
 * "Unfortunately the team did not played very well and was relegated. Next promotion was in 1982. Korona played in 2nd league to 1990 and in that year was relegated once again. Year 1996 brought several changes." (sentence fragments, what do you mean by "relegated"? "did not played" is not good English.)
 * "Supporters of Korona are one of the most numerously on settling on tribunes of premier league Orange Ekstraklasa matches" (most numerously what? bad grammar).
 * "New Korona stadium, despite that it stands in place, in which a stadium stood earlier, it is an object entirely new, built from bases according to directions of UEFA and in construction of sports object newest trends." (run-on string of fragments, no sense of coherence for the sentence, poor translation: "sports object newest trends")

This is just a start to identifying the many grammatical and spelling errors throughout the article. It not only needs a thorough copyedit, it needs to be completely rewritten. The language is incoherent, and often in places reads like a jumbled mess of words. The paragraph transitions are all in this flowery self-promoting prose; often complex and inconsistent in their structure. There's excessive use of bold text. For example, you do not need to embolden the name Korona every time you use it. In fact, the Manual of Style says plainly not to do it.

The "Major Achievements" is a bullet point list, and should be transformed into prose...right now it is too much like trivia. Aside from not saying much about the team, it's style is sorely lacking. Sure, the article might be "mid-importance", but if you think this article is A-class now, you're sorely mistaken and regrettably deluding yourself. Right now, this article is somewhere between a stub and a start in terms of article quality. It is no where near an A-class rating, not even on the same continent. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I've removed the use of images as bullet points and to punctuate section-headers, per WP:MOS and WP:IUP and to make this look less like a pathetic fan website. I also (and more importantly) think their repeated use violates the fair use policy regarding the use of logos. I also added a few categories taht are relevant to the article. The rest you have to do.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to get a peer review for this article to help improve its quality. Could you rate it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MKS1973fan (talk • contribs) 15:56, January 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)