Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester United F.C./archive1

Manchester United F.C.
I would like this page reviewed for its encyclopaedic content and I would like comments about how it could be improved to reach FA status. Thank you. PeeJay 17:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Before I start, I'd better point out that I am far from neutral on this subject. I'll do my best to remain impartial, but you might want to take these comments with a pinch of salt.

1. Recent history has an excess of detail when compared to earlier events. A certain amount of this is inevitable, given that the last 15 years have been the club's most successful, but exhibition matches from 2007 take up as much of the article the 77 years from 1878 to 1945 - more than half of the club's existence. When did Newton Heath join the Football League? No mention of Ernest Magnall's side, which won the club's first honours?

2. The first three subsections of the history are completely unreferenced.

3. The club crest and colours section and the sponsorship section should be standalone rather than subsections of the history. The list of sponsors in the "recent sponsorship" section seems trivial and unnecessary e.g."Official Low Fare Airline". Marketing has been influential in the club's success, maybe this could be converted into a more general section on that aspect.

4. Apply some garden shears to the list of club officials - we don't need to know who the Under 9-10's Coach is.

5. Remove the Manchester Senior Cup from the honours list, its a minor competition.

6. Newton Heath's Bank Street ground should be mentioned in the Stadium section. Merge the bulleted information into the prose or remove it.

7. Matt Busby was appointed manager in 1945 and took a then-unheard of approach to his job, joining the players for training as well as performing administrative tasks. This needs a citation. I'm doubtful of its accuracy, as many player-managers (who by definition have a role in training) pre-date this.

8. This youth policy has now become instrumental in the club's success. Bit of a stretch to regard the Class of 92 as a direct continuation of Busby's approach.

9. Some parts of the lead are not stated anywhere else in the article, see WP:LEAD.

10 The article could use a thorough copyedit. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a gives some useful information is this regard. Here are couple of examples from the lead: Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 19:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The club has had the highest average attendance in English football for the past 34 seasons, with the exception of 1987-89. Simpler to write "The club has had the highest average attendance in English football for 32 of the last 34 seasons".
 * Among European clubs, they have been perennial revenue leaders for the late 1990s and early 2000s, and they are still the fourth richest (in terms of revenue) in the world. European clubs are the richest. In terms of revenue = turnover. How about "In the late 1990s and early 2000s the club were world leaders in revenue. As of 2007, they have the fourth largest turnover in club football.
 * The paragraph about the club becoming a plc probably shouldn't be in the lead. Consider creating an Ownership section like Arsenal_F.C..


 * Thanks for the input, Oldelpaso. I've already implemented some of the things you have suggested, and I will continue with your suggested changes tomorrow after I've had some sleep. PeeJay 23:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for such a comprehensive input. I've numbered them for ease of reference. I'm in the process of cleaning up the opening paragraph and implementing points 3, 4, ,6, 7 and 8 as appropriate. I disagree with point 5 on the basis that removing it contradicts point 1 in the sense that it devalues the club's early history. However somebody has already done this so I won't revert unless there's a consensus that it should be reinstated.

1 and 10 seem to have been implemented to some extent already, but the rest will take some time... BeL1EveR 18:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already done 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. PeeJay 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
This is a the first time I've peer reviewed an article, so bear with me, but here's a few points:


 * 1) Lead - "1986-1987 season" should be written as "1986–87 season", and "They are Premier League's reigning champions" should be "they are the Premier League's reigning champions". Also, the first sentences says "MUFC is...." while the last sentence of the first paragraph says "MUFC are...." - these need to be consistent
 * 2) Section 1.1 - wikilink Manchester Piccadilly and Clayton, I'm sure they have articles. Also, the singular/plural thing is an issue, as at one point "its" and "their" are used in the same sentence, which is grammatically totally incorrect.  The story about the dog needs a citation.  Most paragraphs have no references.  A number of things which should be wikilinked aren't (Billy Meredith, Aston Villa, etc)
 * 3) Section 1.2 - most player names (including Duncan Edwards and Bobby Charlton!) aren't wikilinked, they should be. This whole section has no citations.
 * 4) Section 1.3 - as before, lots of key names are not wikilinked and there are no citations.
 * 5) Section 1.4 - again, needs more citations
 * 6) Section 1.5 - no citations, statements such as "what was then considered one of the greatest comebacks ever witnessed" definitely need one
 * 7) Section 1.6 - gives too much coverage to seasons in which the club achieved little of note e.g. ten lines devoted to 2005–06 is out of proportion with coverage of other seasons
 * 8) Section 1.6.1 - citations again
 * 9) Section 2 - citations and wikilinking again, also I think the description of the current shirts is a little too detailed
 * 10) Section 3 - seems OK, although I'm unsure about the list of "official....." products
 * 11) Section 4 - badly needs citations, especially for phrases like "The vocal United fans have a reputation for being innovative" and "there has been much debate about the lack of atmosphere at Old Trafford"
 * 12) Section 5 - template is all messed up for the listing of Anderson (a minor issue), also is there a reference for the list of captains

As you can see, the main problems I've identified are a lack of citations and appropriate wikilinks, if these can be addressed I think this article stands a good chance of making it to FA. Hope this helps!!!! ChrisTheDude 07:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)