Wikipedia:Peer review/Arsène Wenger/archive3

Arsène Wenger

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take this to FAC in the coming weeks. The article has been expanded almost threefold since I last worked on it years ago, and I'd be grateful for feedback/advice – particularly to do with prose. Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

During upcoming 5 days I will try to have a look at this article, i.e. read it once entirely and share general views with the FA criteria in mind. Know that I am not an expert regarding making reviews, neither a football expert but I am quite familiar with the sport and will give it my best shot to provide helpful advice. If you like, you can also have a look at my football-related nomination for peer review, Belgium national football team (also an FA attempt soon). Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (1)

First of all, my greatest respect for all the efforts you made to improve this article; this expansion is very appreciated! IMO the main strengths are the thorough referencing, the rich word usage and the fair amount of suitable images. The narrative style makes it amusing to read. I was not familiar with Wenger, but for a trainer with such a long career in the Premier League – and it is not over yet – this care seems deserved.
NOTE: Please respond, below the entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
A general issue when the current article is nominated as FAC might be the length... the readable prose size is 65 kB, while the rules of thumb say that those > 60 kB should probably be divided (not black-and-white, of course)
In the captions, you should let the proper sentences end with a period, and the mere word groups without a period. (Five corrections are needed.)
There are quite some red links remaining: six. Either I would omit the links, either I would create a stub for them.
The Playing Statistics table has many empty cages. Do these indicate that he didn't play, or that the exact numbers are unknown? You might consider either an em dash (—), either a question mark.
All honours in the Honours section should be referenced; at this moment you have to look up references for these achievements in the text.
At the part of individual honours, I would add the number of times he achieved them, just like this was done for the clubs.
In the managerial career, to be consistent I would either start all three subsections with the years, either with the club names.
"first-team" -> "first team", "last minute goal" -> "last-minute goal"
No spaces between period and reference
For readability, instead of 75000000 I would write 75,000,000 or 75 000 000 or 75 million
Put notes and comments after punctuation (periods or commas, but not words)
A single time the order of the references is to be changed: 17&16 ->16&17
Lay-out guidelines suggest that the text should never be 'sandwiched' between two images (or quote boxes). At this moment, this is the case four times.
You might want to add a box at the Talk page indicating that this article is written in British English.
A couple of images have a rather blurry appearance; consider using sharper ones if possible.
Consider adding a translation of the (limited number of) reference titles that are in a foreign language.
NOTE: Please respond, below the entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Soon I will try add a second set of comments, in which I try to give more advice mainly about the prose itself. (Hard, because I'm no native English speaker and it appears to be written in a professional style...) Kareldorado (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]