Wikipedia:Peer review/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season 2008–09/archive1

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season 2008–09

 * 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 June 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 June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into the article and just wanted to know the quality of it and how to take it forward.

Just a small note, in the season description section, when talking about matches, sometimes there isn't a different reference because every one of the matches is referenced as part of the score in the results section and I felt it might be a bit redundant if I just repeated the reference.

Thanks a lot, Prem4eva (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 

A few comments:


 * The lead is too short, should be a couple of paragraphs at least. (per WP:LEAD)


 * Seasons and scores use the en dash rather than the standard hyphen, e.g. 2008–09 and 2–1, not 2008-09 and 2-1. (per WP:DASH)


 * When writing in prose about numbers less than ten, you should normally write them as words, e.g. two points from eight games, not 2 points from 8 games. (per WP:MOSNUM)


 * The Pre-season Transfers section is possibly a bit too long and could be made more interesting to read. Try to avoid proseline, where every sentence starts "On such and such a date, x happened". Also, the dates of the summer transfers, while a useful reference when listed in the table further down are not that critical in the article text. Does it matter whether Keane moved on the 28th of July as opposed to the 27th or 29th?


 * Try to reduce the use of statements such as "news broke" or "it was announced", since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of actual events, backed up by sources, as opposed to an encyclopedia of news bulletins covering those events.


 * Some of the inline citations are in the wrong place. The inline citation goes immediately after punctuation, with no space inbetween.


 * Considering the article is about Tottenham Hotspur's season, it is surprising that ten other teams are highlighted in colour in the Premier League table, but Spurs are not. My eyes should be drawn towards Spurs as I am interested in where they finished.


 * Date format should be 28 March, not 28th March, even in prose. (per WP:DATE)


 * Premier League should always be capitalised (not premier league)


 * Be careful not to add your own commentary or analysis, e.g. "The match was a disaster". Also don't add peacock terms such as "amazing" in "grabbed an amazing point" (see WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK)


 * Although there are a lot of references in the article, some of the "month" sections are completely unreferenced. Regarding your above comment about references, you can re-use the same reference in the article by using named references. (see WP:REFNAME)


 * Lastly, I'd advise having a look at Bradford City A.F.C. season 2007–08 for some general ideas, as this article reached Good Article status and is probably the pick of the club football season articles that I've seen.

Hope this is useful and good luck with improving the article. Let me know if you have any further questions. cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from


 * Infobox
 * There should be no bold text other than the field titles. Done Govvy  ( talk )
 * "Runners-up" is hyphenated.
 * "Last 32" should be "Round of 32", as that is what the round is called in the UEFA Cup 2008–09 article.
 * I'd prefer it if the top scorers had full names.
 * Lead
 * The lead is way too short.
 * Don't bold "Tottenham Hotspur" per WP:BOLDTITLE.
 * "season" should not start with a capital letter.
 * Season 2008–2009
 * The prose still needs massive referencing. No point citing specific examples since it's pretty much the whole thing that needs it.
 * Team kits
 * The infobox has parameters that allow kits to be shown there. Do we need to know what colour the goalkeeper kits are?
 * Premier League table
 * Is it really necessary to have the entire Premier League table in the article. I suggest showing Spurs' position with one or two teams either side.
 * I think it looks better with the full table and you get a better whole picture of the league then. Govvy  ( talk )


 * Transfers
 * This is a comment that applies to most of the article, but I really despise the unorthodoxly coloured table headers, and I'm sure they go against WP:ACCESS. Stick to standard table header colours.
 * Don't use a non-black text colour in the dates column as it makes it look like the dates are linked. At first glance, I was going to say don't link dates, but then I realised I'd been deceived by the text colour.
 * Can't you merge the "Loaned out" and "Completed Loan departures" tables? Apart from the fact that Pekhart's loan is still in effect, I can't see any reason to split them, since people aren't stupid enough to think that January 2010 is part of the 2008-09 season. You could then remove the word "Completed" from both the loan arrivals and departures titles.
 * Squad list
 * This section is completely redundant to the "Player statistics" section and could easily be deleted.
 * Starting 11
 * This section is tantamount to original research and should probably be deleted.
 * Match results
 * There is a massive over-use of the goal template in this section. All instances of the template should be removed.
 * Spurs' website seems to have given the "own goal" against CD Denia to Townsend. Perhaps you should reflect this in the table.
 * Typically, own goals are denoted by "o.g.", not "OG", and penalties should be denoted by "pen.", not "pen".
 * Where the attendance is not known, leave the cell blank. "N/A" usually stands for "not applicable", which is not applicable in this case.
 * The comparison of the Premier League finish with the previous season is original research and not appropriate. That whole section is also redundant to the Premier League table above (which should be condensed, as I noted earlier)
 * That Spurs were eliminated from the FA Cup by Man Utd should be obvious from the results table. Therefore, the "FA Cup Result" section is redundant. In fact, so are the "League Cup Result" and "UEFA Cup Result" sections. Delete them.
 * Manager statistics
 * These aren't actually manager statistics. They're just club statistics conveniently split into the two managers' reigns. Personally, I don't think that it's particularly encyclopaedic, and might even constitute OR.
 * Player statistics
 * What's with the small font here? Make the font 100% size.
 * There's also no need for the "As of" lines any more, since the season is over.
 * Couldn't you make the stats section similar to the one at Manchester United F.C. season 2008–09, and split both goals and appearances by competition in a single table?
 * External links
 * What is Spurs Odyssey? Looks like a fansite, and probably shouldn't be linked to.
 * Actually, none of the other links in the section look that useful. Unless there is an official Spurs page with data about the 2008-09 season, there's no need for an external links section in this article.
 * Have removed the external links. Govvy  ( talk )

Hope my comments help. Send me a note when you've dealt with them and I'll get back to you. – PeeJay 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a having a look Peejay -
 * reply from


 * All the infobox notes are done,
 * With the lead, it will be expanded ASAP and with the bold, Bradford City A.F.C. season 2007–08 maintained bold in the lead and has achieved GA status
 * Pretty sure Peejay is correct, see WP:BOLDTITLE. I've now corrected the Bradford City article. GA articles may still have a few minor style issues. --Jameboy (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Season 2008-09 will have refs added ASAP
 * Yes, I do think the goalkeeper kit is needed, the goalkeeper is part of the team and his kit differs
 * Agree with Govvy
 * I see your point about table heading colours but I don't believe it to a huge defining factor on the quality of article that the header colours correspond to the team colours, if it truly makes or breaks it then of course, I don't think it's that big a deal, date colours removed in transfer sections, loan sections merged,
 * Squad list and starting 11 deleted
 * I saw the {goal} debate on wikiproject football and no consensus was clearly reached, I personally prefer the template having not used in the 2007-08 season article, so the {goal} remains but multiple goals are changed to reflect the changes to the template, N/A blanked, result section deleted
 * The goal template is intended only for use with footballbox. In these tables, it is used in a column entitled "Scorers", making the images unnecessary decoration. They should be deleted. – PeeJay 00:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the manager statistics, they are statistics and they offer an insight into the performances of the two managers, and important/encyclopedic considering the amount of emphasis put on Tottenham Hotspur's management this season and as for OR, but that logic then the image of bradford's position by round which features on the bradford page, which again achieved GA, should surely be thought of as Original research
 * The font isn't in the <-small-> template, that is the restrictions of the template the information is in, (UPDATE - Goals section has been seperated)
 * Again Govvy

The remaining points will be sorted, as well of course the points made by Jameboy

Thanks again everyone

Prem4eva (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)