Wikipedia:Peer review/West Ham United F.C./archive1

West Ham United F.C.
I think this article is solid, with interesting prose balanced with trivia and lists, yet it is only rated B class. Other than extra pictures, what does it need to push it to GA or even FA status? It is an important article about a club very important to English football, and should be improved in as many ways as possible. к1иg f1$н  £я5ω1fт  20:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think it goes into far too much comprehensive detail in the history section, particularly the part about the Harry Redknap era. Also, there's some jargon that a reader may be unfamiliar with, for example the use of the word "pitch" as a location early on in the article. I would also avoid the inclusion of any list that must be maintained, such as the list of current players (they aren't all notable, so there is no need to list them; a list of notable players is sufficient). I am uncertain that naming the management qualifies under WP:NOT either. -Amatulic 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Pitch" is pretty standard usage in British English, but I've linked it to Football pitch. Oldelpaso 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Darn edit conficts. As it stands the article is a solid B. To go beyond that...
 * Citations. Citations are sparse, without more of them the article will be forever B-Class.
 * There is a lot of recentism. The vast majority of the history section covers the last decade, despite West Ham not winning any of their four major trophies in this period. The sections on recent years need a lot of slimming down, and those from earlier need expanding.
 * I don't think the number of lists is balanced - there are too many in my opinion. The Premier League record should be removed, West Ham have been in existence for 111 years, not 13. The Official dream team is OK, but the notable former player list below has no criteria for inclusion, making it a POV section which should be removed. The Management list is excessive trivia, few will care who the current kit man etc are. The league status table would be better presented graphically or as a timeline.
 * After all the lists comes quite a bit of useful information shunted into Additional information and trivia which deserve to be turned into proper sections and made more prominent. Examples of how to do this can be found in several featured football articles.
 * The stadium is not mentioned at all.
 * I have strong doubts as to whether use of fair use images is appropriate. Free use images related to West Ham can be created without much trouble e.g. a picture of Upton Park.


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to say Cheers for the heads ups guys. As it is I wrote almost 3/4rs of the current history, but unfortunately my knowledge is patchy beyond 20 years ago (what with me only being 26 myself) so you'll have to excuse the focus somewhat on Redknapp.  The lack of original source material on the net, or in books, to cite is a problem I am continually running into so I welcome anyone to add, or assist in finding suitable sourcing or material.
 * Personally I tend to agree with the idea there are too many tables. I did trim many down, and re-arranged the entire structure a few months back but without compltely 'taking over' the article I simply did the minimum to make it a readable document.
 * I agree with the point regarding trivia. Someone unfortunately keeps messing with the page arrangement (and namely the menu arranging system).
 * The fair use argument regarding images of players is somewhat moot. If a free image exists - then it should be used.  If a free image does not exist...then a fair use can be claimed for illustrative purposes.
 * I'll work on it sometime!--Koncorde 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking on Amazon there appears to be a reasonably substantial body of literature about West Ham. I don't know where you live, but if its anywhere near London the library may be worth a try. Oldelpaso 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'm a northerner - though a dedicated Hammer all the same! I have a number of small articles with multiple encylcopedia and similar - but as yet no formative way of meshing them together to form an article.  I was rather hoping someone with a more keen knowledge and book sense would 'flesh out' the old history, but have been waiting 3 months for it now.--Koncorde 20:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)