Wikipedia:Peer review/Hereford United F.C./archive1

Hereford United F.C.

I've spent over a year improving and updating this article, and its associated articles, and I would like feedback from a different viewpoint. Bigmike 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Many thanks for all your comments so far, I've managed to implement some of the suggested changes already. The other changes, particularly citations, will be forthcoming in the next couple of days when I can get my hands on the relevant books. Bigmike 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man

Hey, definitely a good article, I just wanted to add some feedback to encourage both Bigmike and other editors to do the same. I'll provide further comments as soon as I can. The Rambling Man 20:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on where you want this article to go, my review comments will come from a potential featured article perspective. So, here we go (for starters!)...

Red links... usually a no-no, so either create the articles you've red-linked or remove the links.
Dashes or hyphens or whatever. Check out WP:DASH for advice on how to use things that used to be simple but that are now complicated!
Images - always a good idea. You said that the Hereford badge has changed a couple of times - add in the historical badges under fair use criteria and discuss them. Always a good and useful thing to do.
Citations, witness the up-to-date policy regarding attribution. Your history section hasn't a single citation which some people may find unacceptable.

More to come, but that's a start. Hope it helps and get in touch if want to discuss any of it futher... The Rambling Man 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...near-extinction... - a bit dramatic, cite it or reduce point-of-view.
Why is current capacity reduced in the infobox? Consider a citation.
...legendary... is very POV, can you provide a citation for this?
...equalling another record... - Ipswich v Man Utd perchance?! Whatever, it needs explanation...
The attendances listed out like that are a bit dry, consider either making it better prose, removing it or making a table out of it?
Consider a W/D/L/F/A managerial history if possible.
Add an overview of Hereford's records.
Avoid too many external links, spam warning!

Again, hope that helps, all the best. The Rambling Man 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Elisson

Not an exhaustive list of things to do but rather a few things I noticed right away:

Get rid of the current season section, we're not a news service. Otherwise the history section is better balanced than most other history sections you see these days, although there is some "recentism" (1924-1966 [42 years] two paragraphs, 1966-2006 [40 years], five and a half paragraphs).
Needs references and more citations if you want to bring it to GA or FA status. Examples of sentences needing citation:
History section: "In 1966 Hereford signed John Charles, the legendary Wales, Leeds United and Juventus player, whose presence boosted attendances substantially."

History section: "The 1996-97 season saw the club relegated from the Football League amid major financial troubles due to major mismanagement."

Support section: "Hereford United was historically one of the best-supported clubs in non-league football, particularly during the 1960s."
A few nice images would really spice up the article.
Incorporate the trivia bits of info into the other sections.
There should be some kind of inclusion criteria for the notable players section.

Overall, this is a pretty good article, but it needs a little work to reach GA status, and some more work to be ready for FAC. – Elisson • T • C • 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso

The article definitely compares favourably with articles about other teams from the same level. It is structurally sound, but could do with more references.

I disagree with The Rambling Man about redlinks, they are few in number so it isn't much of an issue.
- Cool, but it does depend on where this article is going - most, if not all FA's have no red-links. However, a red-link isn't an intrinsic failing point. The Rambling Man 22:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be so sure about that. ;) Today's featured article has twelve redlinks, for example. Redlinks are generally not an issue on FAC unless they are integral for the article in question, unlike list articles where the list itself depends on having a lot of bluelinks. This one has a few in the notable players section, but that section itself is really not important for the article so I don't see a problem with the redlinks there. – Elisson • T • C • 22:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid using language which implies an emotional attachment (not always easy to do when you're a fan, I know) e.g. Unfortunately Hereford lost in the playoffs on penalties to Aldershot Town - it wasn't unfortunate for Aldershot!
Graham Turner's role of chairman-manager isn't unique - Ron Noades and Barry Fry have held the same position in recent years.
As stated above, more citations would be of benefit. Ideally, every statement which could be questioned by a sceptical reader should have a citation. To take examples from near the start of the History section, the merger which led to the club's formation, the groundshare with Hereford City and the record win over QPR should all be supported by citations.
While the pool of literature available about Hereford is likely to be limited in comparison with a higher division club, a search of Herefordshire libraries reveals three books sbout the club (using "Hereford United" as a search term here) If you live in the area it might be worth borrowing them to help with citations.
Restate the capacity of Edgar Street in the Stadium section.
Merge the items mentioned in the trivia section elsewhere in the article, except the Soccer AM one, which can be removed.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Qwghlm

I concur with most of the above comments, especially the ones saying more images are needed. This article is good, but need some tweaks and enhancements.

Club referred to in the singular or plural - either is fine but make it consistent e.g. "The club has won relatively few honours [...] However they became synonymous..."
The match with Wigan Athletic in 1953-54 is needlessly mentioned twice in successive paragraphs - remove one (I would suggest the first).
I don't like the use of words such as "legendary" when describing players or managers, it smacks of hyperbole.
"with literally every vantage point taken" - misuse of the word literally, unless their really were people in the sky watching the game, etc.
"the distinction of being the first team to finish bottom of the Second Division after winning the Third Division title the previous season" — needs citation
"equalised against the run of play" - unwikify and provide a very exceptional source (i.e. a neutral account) for that claim.
Graham Turner's takeover of the club is better moved into the relevant part of the History section.
"they used material from blackout curtains to make shorts when they ran out of white material" — interesting but needs a citation.
Surely the crest section can be discussed in more than one sentence, unless the history is that boring! When was it first adopted, what changes have there been, etc., etc.
Citations needed aplenty for the stadium section, particularly anything to do with financial issues.
"to the apparent chagrin of visiting supporters" and "they regularly attracted the largest home attendances" need citations.
Managerial history could be turned into a table with more precise dates, performance records, P/W/D/L statistics etc., if such records are available.
Trim the external links - the MAD/Rivals/Vital Football sites are all pretty minor and provide little extra information. Qwghlm 10:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]