Wikipedia:Peer review/Moseley Rugby Football Club/archive1

Moseley Rugby Football Club
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've been slowly improving this this article over the last couple of years, but would appreciate some comments about it. I suspect its fairly biased and heavily weighted to the last 10 years but any comment would be appreciated

Thanks, Dunk the Lunk (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement. I assume you eventually want to get this to Good or even Featured article status, so I will make comments accordingly.
 * The disambiguation link finder (toolbox in the upper right corner of this page) finds a few dab links that will need to be fixed.
 * The biggest problem I see with the article right now is that there are quite a few places that need references. For example all of the records broken in the The Bournbrook Era - Crisis and Final Rescue section need refs, and unless I am mistaken and missed a ref, I did not see a single reference in the Club honours section or any of the sections following it, i.e. Current Standings, Teams, Transfers In 10-11, Transfers Out 10-11, Notable former players or Sam Doble. The lack of refs would be a quick fail at GAN or FAC.
 * Wherever possible, try to use references that are to third-party reliable sources that are independent of the club.
 * I would also spell out MSA in the references.
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
 * The lead can be up to 4 paragraphs long (depending on the article length) but this lead is only one paragraph. I would expand the lead to two or three paragraphs - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way so there seems to be a lot of room for expansion of the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
 * The article has quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and even short sections. I would either combine these with others or perhaps expand them to improve the flow of the article. As one example, the Building for the Future section is only two sentences (and has no refs).
 * I agree that the article has some problems with WP:Recentism - this is also a WP:WEIGHT issue. Could there be an article on the team in the new Billesley Common and just a summary of the seasons here?
 * The article also has some pretty serious gaps in its coverage of the history of the team. Comprehensiveness is a FA criterion, and GAs have to cover the major points, but the article has major holes in hisotry - 25 years pass between the Olympics and next mention in History, then 30 years (1935 to 1965). There is more on the 2007/2008 season (and 2008/2009 and definitely 2009/2010) than there is on the 50 plus years in the Golden years section.
 * Headers need to follow WP:Head - do not repeat the title of a header in a subheader, so under Seasons as a header, the subheaders do not need to repeat the word "season" (2007/2008 season could just be 2007/2008)
 * File:MOSELEY IMAGE.png is almost certainly copyrighted by the club and not by the uploader - I assume this needs a better license (probably under WP:FAIR USE)
 * Make sure to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR, As two examples, I owuld explain how they could play one game and still win a silver medal in Paris in 1900 (Germany lost its one match too), and When league rugby commenced, the team was placed in the Courage National Division 1, the top division at the time.  needs to give the year this happened. If you are a fan of the club you almost certainly know this, but if you come the article ignorant of these details, the article does not do as much as it could to inform the reader.
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)