Wikipedia:Peer review/Celtic F.C./archive2

Celtic F.C.

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 want to get it to GA status and I think it would be really useful to hear what other editors feel are needed to make it a succesful article. Obviously there are still some maintenance issues with refs and the article hasn't been copy edited but I would prefer to resolve those issues after the content has been improved. That is my main focus at the moment and I'd like to hear what could be done to make it more like other football clubs at GA and also to improve what may already be there.

Thanks, Adam4267 (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments some quick ones while I cook my chips in anticipation of the Czechs stuffing the Portuguese (I live in hope).

I would tend to say "an association football club" just to be clear.
Lead could use expanding, it's supposed to summarise the whole article, WP:LEAD has some guidance on how long it should be.
"and the 2003 UEFA Cup Final.[3][4][5][3]" don't think you need the second [3].
Check score lines in the article meet WP:DASH i.e. are separated by an unspaced en-dash.
Don't think you need to link "Irish" to Ireland.
Avoid squashing text between images.
It's either Celtic F.C. or Celtic FC, not both, so pick one and be consistent.
"The extra 'h' imitates " don't think you need to link the letter h.
Be consistent, is it "h" or "H", i.e. capitalise (or not) the same way.
Just at a quick view, lots of short paragraphs in the History section, for better flow I'd suggest merging several of them.
An odd balance to the History section... Of 14 paras describing the history of the club (1888 to present), the first 4 paras (36% of the paras) take us to 1895, the next 1 para deals with 1897 to 1944, the next 6 paras take us to 2000, then we have 3 paras for the last 9 years. You need some balance here.
Avoid POV words like "trounced" and tabloid phrases like "annus mirabilis" unless you can directly attribute them to reliable third-party sources.
Ensure paras like "On 19 October 1957, Celtic trounced Rangers a record 7–1 in the final of the Scottish League Cup at Hampden Park in Glasgow, retaining the trophy they had won for only the first time the previous year. The scoreline remains a record win in a British domestic cup final." have all facts referenced.
Don't think you need a "Current season" section when it's in the infobox.
"Crest and colours" section is really brief, would suggest expanding it.
"They also had the 12th highest average attendance out of all the football clubs in Europe." unreferenced.
"Celtic media" section reads like a list of trivia.
Be consistent with italics for works like "The Celtic View".
Fix the [citation needed] and red-link.
Where are the minor "honours" referenced? E.g. the Fenway Football Challenge?

That'll do for now. There's a long way to go, even for GA in my opinion, but start fixing this lot and you're in with a chance after a few more reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Crest and colours" section, you don't really discuss the crest at all, and I would hazard a guess that some of the away strips over the past 100 years may be notable? May even be worth expanding the section to discuss when shirts started to be sponsored, and by whom... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]