Wikipedia:Peer review/2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming to eventually get it to GA status and require input from others to achieve that aim. Currently the structure and the specific statistics seem to be correct but I would be grateful for any comments on the grammar, language and attribution improvements.
Thanks, => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 22:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Following a quick scan, I like the use of sourced prose in the article in addition to listing results. However, I am concerned that it is heavily reliant for sourcing on either Norwich's own website or the BBC. No issue with either of these being used, but the season must have been covered in detail in other sources? Fenix down (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the mixture of sources for the main text of article as they're a mixture of BBC, Sky, local media an others. The reason the BBC and The Pinkun is used so heavily for the reports are that they provide more info including the attendance etc. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comments from Oldelpaso
The article does a reasonable job of telling us what happened over the course of the season. What it doesn't tell us much about is why things happened, or why any of it mattered. By which I mean to say there isn't much wider context. Norwich were coming off the back of their highest finish for 20 years, and embarked on a spending spree without precedent in their history. To me this is a story of heightened expectations that were quickly dashed, and turned into the desperate struggles of the relegation-bound. That doesn't always come across.
- Division names are proper nouns and should be capitalised.
- The season has finished, so the past tense should be used.
- "with only a period in September and October in the relegation zone" and May...
- I'd be tempted to start off with a short paragraph about what happened last season to help set the scene.
- Grant Holt had finished the preceding four seasons as Norwich's highest goalscorer. The reasons for his departure deserve more explanation.
- The bit about Lambert should be reworded to explicitly name him as the former Norwich manager, the current wording kind of assumes we know this.
- "The rebuilding task for the 2013–14 season" do you rebuild while on an upward trajectory?
- By Norwich's standards, this was an extraordinary spending spree, including club records. This merits some comment.
- "Hooper signed for £5 million a figure that was less than was offered in January 2013" What offer? Would be better worded as something like " Norwich first attempted to sign Hooper in January 2013, but Celtic rejected the offer. (needs reference, and the perhaps the value of the offer) Six months later Hooper moved for a lower fee, £5 million."
- Almost every paragraph from Premier League Season starts "(month) started with (result)", and ends "(month) finished with (result)". This gets repetitive.
- Hull aside, the explanations about European qualification on the snippet of the league table are irrelevant.
- Did Norwich field weakened sides in the cups, or a full team?
- There must have been some analysis of the team's strengths and weaknesses over the season. Even if its just superficial stuff like worst attacking record in the division, or a tendency to get tonked when away to big clubs. It might be worth looking through Michael Cox's tactical columns for The Guardian, to give one possible source.
- Can you find any suitably licensed images from during the season? If you're desperate I took a couple of low quality photos from our end when we visited [1].
- I wouldn't regard caughtoffside.com as a reliable source.
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- It does, a lot. I've still got to take a look the items including the repetitive wording onwards. I'm struggling for images though. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 10:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)