Wikipedia:Peer review/Muntz Street/archive1

Muntz Street

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to submit it for GA and wonder if there's enough content, and what might need doing to it before it's worth submitting. And if anyone has any sensible suggestions for what to call the subsections of the History section, they'd be welcome :-)

Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's enough content for a Good Article and you've done really well considering the relatively short timeframe and how long ago it was. I think I might struggle to get a Stoney Lane article up to a similar standard, but maybe one day. For the subsections, how about "Location and facilities", "Football matches" and "Move to St Andrew's". I'm sure others will be able to think of better ones though. I'll see if I can spot any other possible improvements. --Jameboy (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by Jameboy
 * Good enough for me, unless others really can think of better ones. "Football matches" is slightly misleading, as I've included representative (County FA) footy under Other uses, but "Small Heath (Alliance)/Birmingham's matches" might be just a touch clumsy... Shame they had to change their name twice in the relevant period. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Club matches"....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * done, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

An excellent shortish article, a worthy addition to the football genre. It should have little difficulty passing GA. It has a nostalgic, almost melancholy quality, with its reminders of lost sporting endeavours.

I have just a few points and/or suggestions:-
 * Would the infobox image be PD in the United States, without a confirmation of its original publication date?
 * A reproduction of a part-page of one of the Birmingham newspapers appears here,, which includes a large version of the image; words on the part-page mention "this season&mdash;1905-6". So it was originally published no later than 1906, which would make it PD-US. Would that explanation be enough of a rationale, or would I need to cite the specific newspaper and date? (it's on my list of things to find, as the book reproduction also shows a few words of an adjoining article which looks interesting)
 * The precise original publication information might be necessary if you were to take this article to FAC. Personally I would like to see it at FAC, but that's a decision for you. My advice would be to get an opnion from one of the FAC image people, e.g. User:Jappalang, before delving too deeply into the depths. Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Having a look at the referred partial print of the newspaper mentioned above, I am convinced this qualifies for a transfer to Commons. Even though the photographer is unknown, it has been published in a newspaper in 1905–1906, which qualifies it for commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown and commons:Template:PD-1923 (both required there).  The information above should be used for the "source" field.  There are a few things that could be improved.
 * The image could be scanned from the book; it is a larger and clearer view.
 * The name of the newspaper should be obtained; look around in the book, chances are it might be credited somewhere.
 * Date of the newspaper printing (per point 2, it might be somewhere around).
 * Thus the source field would be "Photograph was published in, a Birmingham newspaper, on . The newspaper page has been re-published in "
 * If the details are lacking just start with "Photograph was published in a Birmingham newspaper during 1905–1906. ..." Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the use of your expertise :) It's probably not obvious from the photo you've seen, but the book's pages are tightly bound so that a strip of newspaper page disappears down the join between the pages; unfortunately this includes part of the gable bearing the clock, so would be fairly noticeable if the pages were scanned. Though it's still worth trying. In the book, photo credits only mention "the Birmingham Post & Mail archive", which narrows it down to those two newspapers plus any others of the same stable, and no specific date is mentioned. The archive is publicly available on microfilm, so there's a decent chance I could find the original when I'm next able to visit Birmingham. Struway2 (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's all. Well done Brianboulton (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The History section begins: "The Small Heath Alliance..." If the club's name was "Small Heath Alliance", the "The" is unnecessary. This sentence could be expanded, to begin: "Small Heath Alliance Football Club, founded in 18xx, ..." and also by adding the words "early in the 20th century" to the end of the sentence.
 * The Small Heath Alliance is how the contemporary press referred to them, and I've clearly adopted the style :-) Reworded the last bit to some thirty years later as there's already an "early years of the 20th century" at the end of the section.
 * Near the end of the article we are told that the name "Muntz Street" was only adopted later, at an unspecified date, and that during its active duration the ground was known as "Coventry Road". I think the gist of this information should be mentioned in the History section.
 * thinking about how to work it in
 * It would also be worth mentioning the club's change of name to "Birmingham Football Club" in March 1905.
 * Will do: might have a relevant quote somewhere, something about wanting a ground befitting the club bearing the city's name, if I haven't made it up...
 * thanks for the kind words and suggestions, Struway2 (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)