Wikipedia:Peer review/Liverpool F.C./archive7

Liverpool F.C.
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the article is finally close to featured standard. The article has recently been copyedited by a member of the GOCE and I feel that has significantly improved the prose, which was the main problem in previous FAC nominations. I feel the article needs a peer review to just pick out any issues that still exist with the article before it goes to FAC. Cheers NapHit (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC) At least from a football point of view (or 1b and 1c in FACspeak) this looks ready for FAC. My comments are generally nitpicks. Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review
 * Comments by Oldelpaso
 * The "second most-successful club" bit from the lead probably ought to state exactly by what measure, otherwise its open to the type of argument that fills many a football forum. Personally I'd stick to second most successful by league titles and most successful in European competition since both are indisputable. I mean, I wouldn't call the Charity Shield a major honour, even though I've got a ticket for one in my pocket.
 * Soon after Liverpool lost 2–1 to non-league Worcester City F.C. in the 1958–59 FA Cup, Bill Shankly was appointed manager and released 24 players. - could do with splitting up, it sounds a bit like releasing players was a direct result of the FA Cup defeat.
 * Is Dalglish resigning because of Hillsborough covered by one of the references later in the paragraph?
 * At least according to the style guide I usually use (The Guardian), it should be Stadiums rather than Stadia. Good to see that the section keeps the bulk of material about Anfield, not the endless Stanley Park saga.
 * During the 2009–10 season, Liverpool had the fourth-highest average League attendance for an English club: 44,392, which is 94.4% of available capacity. The reference for this now points to a blank table for the upcoming season. Also, the reference date in the ref is 2008 for something referring to the 2009–10 season.
 * Having AFC Liverpool as the second thing mentioned in the Support section seems undue weight.
 * Liverpool's rivalry with Manchester United is seen by many Liverpool supporters as even more intense than the rivalry with Everton, and many Manchester United supporters feel likewise about their rivalry with Liverpool compared to that with their own local rivals Manchester City. - needs a reference.
 * As was raised in the last peer review, the Ownership and finances section has an element of recentism. When something similar was happening in Manchester City F.C., I decided to create Manchester City F.C. ownership and finances and implement summary style. That could be an option here.
 * Liverpool have one of the largest global followings in football, particularly Asia. This could be mentioned somewhere, even if it is only one line.