Wikipedia:Peer review/List of FC Barcelona seasons/archive1

List of FC Barcelona seasons
This peer review discussion has been closed.. This list matches List_of_Ipswich_Town_F.C._seasons in type of sourcing, exceeds it in information and illustration. Comments appreciated.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks pretty good to me (a non-fan). I have several suggestions for further improvement.

Lead
 * "played its first friendly match" - Should friendly be linked or briefly explained?
 * Yes. Done.
 * "members of La Liga in 1929, and is to this day one of three clubs" - The phrase "to this day" is ambiguous. Does it mean 2009? 2010? What will it mean in 2011? Perhaps "through 2010" would be better.
 * Yes. No longer caught in time.
 * Should "relegated" be linked to Promotion and relegation or briefly explained?
 * Okay, linked.
 * "from 1899 to the most recent completed season" - It's probably better to say "from 1899 to 2009–10".
 * Ok, done. Thank you for the comments! Will go through more extensively later. Sandman888 (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Layout
 * The trophies image is displaced on my laptop screen to a position above and to the right of the table. To the image's left is a large blank space. Would it be better to move this image up to the right of the smaller "Amateur era" table?
 * upsized.

Key
 * The amateur table includes the abbreviation "Other comp". Perhaps this should be spelled out in the Key.
 * It's changed.
 * Should a note explain the meanings of Round of 16, Round of 32, and Round of 64?
 * W-linked.
 * W is defined in two ways, as "Games won", and "Winner". It would be more clear to choose something other than "W" for "Winner". Perhaps "C" for Champion?
 * Done.

Footnotes
 * "Last updated: 8 March 2010" - I've never seen the "last updated" line added to a Wikipedia article before. The problem is that it's a semi-private note that other editors might not see when they make changes to the page; when that happens, the note will not be accurate. I'd suggest removing that particular note.
 * Deleted
 * "1 FC Barcelona participated 1959–60 season in UCL and ICFC" - Missing words, "in the"? I'd suggest turning this into a regular in-line citation between a pair of ref tags placed perhaps right after "League" at the top of the table. Also, the abbreviations should be spelled out as well as abbreviated. What do UCL and ICFC stand for?
 * Deleted
 * Citations 5, 6, and 17 need terminal periods because they are complete sentences.
 * Done
 * Citation 17 is odd in that it has an external link embedded in it. There are probably multiple ways to add a note with an inline citation. I've recently started using a "Notes and references" that makes it easy to add notes with their own citations. See Frank Dekum, for example. Just a suggestion.
 * Good suggestion! How do you make multiple references to the same note though?
 * Um, good question. I don't know the answer. Finetooth (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See List of Birmingham City F.C. managers for one way of making multiple references to a note. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, brilliant. Thank you Struway. I'm saving the link for future reference. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 16 March 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. Finetooth (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Sandman888 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2
 * You probably wouldn't know that by consensus, featured seasons lists don't include the ongoing season. Reason being, it affords too much opportunity for incomplete updating to pass the stability criterion. Add a hatnote link to the current season article:
 * I didn't. hat added.
 * A season list is basically a timeline, so consider expanding the lead section to talk a bit more about the history: when their best season(s) was/were and why, periods of relative lack of success, anything interesting... At the moment, it's little more than a list of how many times they won things.
 * Yes, good idea.
 * Alt text on the team photo says "11 bearded men" and "They sit on chairs". Most of them aren't bearded and several are standing...
 * Now it's so much better.
 * For the amateur era section, include the League record Pos/Pl/W/D/L/GS/GA for the regional competitions
 * GS/GA isn't standard English usage. You'd normally expect GF/GA (usually just F/A) for goals for/against, but if using GS for goals scored, you'd pair it with GC for goals conceded.
 * OK, chg.
 * I wouldn't have C for champion rather than W for winner, certainly not in the cups columns. You can be a League champion, but you're a Cup winner. Given that the two usages of W were in different sections of the table, I don't really see the opportunity for confusion.
 * I'm going with the outsider on this one.
 * What is confusing, is using R16 style for round of 16, and R2/3/4 for numbered rounds; would the formats of the comps where you use R2/3/4 work if you used the R16 style instead?
 * Yeah that was someone else. Chg.
 * I'd head the Cup column Copa del Rey rather than just Cup, so the reader doesn't have to click or hover to find out what it is; and don't abbreviate Other competitions
 * it makes the column v. wide.
 * For the professional era section, you need to include each season's result for the Campionat de Catalunya, not just the seasons when they won it. Same with any other comps (League Cup, Latin Cup?)
 * Surely that's not customary.
 * If the competition is a first-team comp important enough to include at all, then it is customary to include it for all the seasons the club plays in it, as you have for the European comps. Reason being this is a list of seasons, not honours. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Need to reduce the size of the trophy image. Using FF3.5 at 1280x960 it causes a large white space between the Professional era heading and the table, and at 1024x768 it fills half the page. Also, the alt text mentions three golden trophies, but they aren't golden.
 * Reduced.
 * Personally, I'd left-align the top scorers, and where there are joint top scorers, I'd put them on separate lines rather than separated by commas, but that's probably just a matter of taste
 * Not sure I agree.
 * Clearly the notes and referencing is a work in progress at the moment, so all I'll say on that is to make sure it's clear where all the information comes from, and make sure web references include: title, work and/or publisher (not just domain name), author if any, publication date if any. If the source isn't in English, the ref should say what language it is in; there's a cite templates parameter
 * It's already a lot better now.
 * Don't let yourself get talked into making it sortable, as happened here. It's a timeline: it's already in the only sensible order :-)
 * I won't.

hope some of this helps, and sorry if I've repeated stuff the other reviewer already said, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for comments, Appreciated! Sandman888 (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)