Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Oxford United F.C. records and statistics/archive1

List of Oxford United F.C. records and statistics
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to hear any opinions or observations, no matter how small, which would help the article reach Featured List. I have based the page on List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics and List of Gillingham F.C. records and statistics.

Thanks, Eddie6705 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks very good in most respects. Although I'm no expert on football, the list appears comprehensive and well-organized. I have a few suggestions about prose and style.

Caption
 * "Ron Atkinson is the clubs record appearance holder, having made 560 appearances between 1959 and 1971." - Rather than repeating "appearance", I'd tighten this to "Ron Atkinson holds the club record for appearances, having made 560 between 1959 and 1971."

Lead


 * "At the end of the 2005–2006 season, United were relegated to the Football Conference after 44 years as a league club, becoming the first team that won a major trophy to be relegated into the Conference." - To avoid repeating "relegated" and "Conference", I'd consider something like "At the end of the 2005–2006 season, after 44 years in the League, United became the first major-trophy winner to be relegated to the Football Conference." I'd link "relegated" in this sentence to Promotion and relegation for the benefit of foreign readers who might not recognize the jargon.


 * "The highest transfer fee ever paid by the club... " - Link "transfer" to Transfer (association football)?


 * Would it be a good idea to include a line (below the lead and above the table of contents) in italics saying something like "All statistics accurate as of match played (some number) December 2010"? The Gillingham and Manchester articles that you mention both do this. I see you have lines like this above the individual tables. That does the job too, but it means that each of those lines will have to be updated each time the article is updated. I can see advantages either way, and you've probably considered this already. Just a thought.

Top goalscorers
 * WP:MOSBOLD suggests limiting bolding to a few special uses and recommends italics for emphasis except in those special cases. I'd be inclined to change bold to italics in the intro to this table and to list the active players in italics rather than double bolding. I see that the Manchester article uses quite a bit of bolding. My feeling is that bolding a lot of things dilutes the effect of the bolding, so I'd be choosy about what to bold. I think the totals work fine in bold, for example.


 * Would it be helpful to non-fans if the article included a note explaining the meaning of "Progressive transfer fee"? You can't link from the head, "Progressive transfer fee received", but you could add a note.

General
 * The book data should include the place of publication, if you can find it. WorldCat usually has this information.


 * The entries should appear in alphabetical order by author's last name.

Specific
 * I ran a script to convert most of the hyphens in date ranges and page ranges to en dash, per MOS:DASH. However, the script didn't "see" the hyphens in some of the page ranges. They will have to be changed one-by-one by hand. They include citations 15, 17, 20, 22, and any others citing multiple pages.


 * While you are adding the en dashes, you should also change "p." to "pp." for these multiple pages. The abbreviation for single pages is "p." but for multiple pages it's "pp.".

Images
 * File:RonAtkinson.JPG has a couple of clean-up tags on its description page that should be addressed before the article goes to FLC. I think some minor housekeeping is all that's needed.


 * File:Saunders, Dean.jpg is licensed as "own work" but may not be an "own photo". It's hard to tell from the information provided. When faced with this sort of problem, I usually try to find an equally good image with a definitely OK license; alternatively, I have occasionally sought more information from the uploader (if possible). Other reviewers may not be troubled by the existing license, but it's good to anticipate these sorts of questions when going to FLC or FAC.

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) 20:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Changes have been made, thank you for the comments. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)