Wikipedia:Peer review/List of American football teams in the United Kingdom/archive1

List of American football teams in the United Kingdom

 * 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 May 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 May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked hard to get as much information as I can into it, and I'd really appreciate some guidance on how to improve it so it could eventually be submitted as a featured list candidate. One specific question I have is the page's title - is it necessary to have "List of..." here, or would a shortened version be better?

Thanks, Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  15:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yes, the "List of" is necessary. "This is a list of American football teams based in the United Kingdom who have been active since the establishment of the first British teams in 1983 and formal competition the year after." Featured lists don't begin like this anymore. See recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems switching the first two paragraphs works well, at least for me. What do you think? Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  08:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks a lot better. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from KV5
 * "by 12 points to nil" - see WP:MOSNUM regarding comparable quantities, nil is the same as saying zero, of course.
 * Changed to "twelve points to zero" - although we always use "nil" when referring to scores in the UK, I went with zero instead.
 * "Nil" would have been fine, and should probably be used since this is a UK topic; it was more a matter of turning that 12 into a twelve. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 00:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer "zero", as it is more understandable by the entire English-speaking population—UK readers will understand both easily, so might as well make it easier for all. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this certainly is a bit of a wierd one - a British subject which could be of equal (or perhaps more) interest to American readers! I think I'll keep the international version (zero) for now, and if necessary raise the issue at the WP:MOS talk page. Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  11:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You use US and UK without explicitly defining them; also, preferred usage is "U.S.", but "UK".
 * I changed "US bases" to "American miltary bases" for clarification. As United Kingdom is spelt out in full in the first sentence, is it necessary to wikilink UK? Most, if not all readers will know what this means.
 * No need to link per WP:OVERLINK. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your color in the table and the key also needs an accompanying symbol per WP:ACCESS. Also, it only needs to be on the team name; the rest of the associated teams and organizations aren't playing in the senior league.
 * All done.


 * Use one of the disambiguation link-fixing tools to repair the 8 dablinks (Standish, Crystal Palace, Hatfield, Lancaster, Lincoln, Nottingham Outlaws, Reading, Sheffield Sabres). I can't speak for any links that lead to the wrong locations either, so give them a once-over.
 * That was a good idea, maybe I'll make more use of that tool in future. Thanks!


 * What reference is verifying the tables? I don't see any.
 * I have some references in the BAFL table's header row, but I shall find some more if possible and add them. The flag leagues may be a problem because, unlike the contact leagues, BAFL haven't published full fixtures / alignments yet - I know for sure the adult league's alignments HAVE been confirmed but they're still finalising the schedule. I may just have to link to their homepage for now, where all the teams are listed.


 * Do a check of your tables for copy accuracy; I saw a year 19998 and a year 202...
 * Doh! I'll get onto that later! All done. I managed to catch a few more, so hopefully that's all cleared now. Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  11:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope this gives you somewhere to start. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 17:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a bit of a drive by comment. Can you make sure you click through all the team name links. For example Durham Saints exists but it is an article on the Aussie rules team, not the American football team. In cases like this you'll need to redlink a suffixed page e.g. Durham Saints. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above; had mentioned this in an above comment. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh, missed that one! Should all be okay now. The two Glasgow Tigers have now been fully disambigged as well. Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  08:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)