Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Arsenal F.C. (1886-1966)/archive1

History of Arsenal F.C. (1886-1966)

Largely self-written, and I would like to get this up to GA status. I'm very aware it needs more citations, but I am not sure where - either add {{cn}} to them in the article or list the problem points below. The other issue is NPOV - as I am a fan after all and aware of the possible problems that entails. And of course, there may be other issues, so fire away below. Thanks. Qwghlm 17:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man

Wonderful article, I'm not even a Gooner but I found it a great read. My comments:

Personal pref - I don't like "...in 1890-91..." - I'd prefer "...in the 1890–91 season...", but that's personal. Technical pref - I think you need to use the en-dash between each of these years.
Yes, more citations, but since I don't have any books which you may reference, and I hate referencing every sentence if a paragraph of sentences can be referenced in one go, I'm reticent to add the "citation needed" tag. One example though is the last three para's of the first section, no citations at all.... but you knew that!
Hints of POV - "...lavish spending", "...given a 7-0 hiding..."
Not sure about the use of v. for versus but another personal pref I would guess.
Really minor point but "The war" section ought to be title "The Second World War" in my opinion since it was, after all, the second one.
"...usually figured around..." is a bit colloquial.

Hopefully some of that is useful, but I thoroughly enjoyed the article. All the best. The Rambling Man 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your commentss. I've dealt with points 3, 5 and 6 and duly corrected. Re: (1) I omit the word "season" as it leads to unnecessary over-repetition. I will (eventually) get round to sorting out the endashes (the very final thing before applying for GA). And I am gradually adding in citations so hopefully part (2) is now less salient, although I still have a long way to go... :) Qwghlm 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso

It might be a daughter article, but it should still have a full lead as a summary.
The fact that Archibald Leitch designed Highbury is repeated.
Looking at the ref given, it looks as though Herbert Chapman campaigned for the renaming of the tube station rather than personally changing it, so this could be worded more clearly.
The occasional prose issue here and there, but it is a high standard overall and more "fresh pair of eyes" stuff than anything else - a few unneccessary "had"s, semi-colons perhaps a little overused. One or two fannish part-sentences: Arsenal topped the table from October and never looked back, Unbowed by the disappointment of the previous season.
Like his predecessors, Wright could not achieve much either - could do with rewording; Chapman was a predecessor...

The refs added in the last 24h mean that GA should be a breeze if a more substantial lead is added; this is a potential featured candidate. Oldelpaso 18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the above issues have been addressed now. Thank you both for the kind words on FA status - I may ask for it though to be honest I think it's too much an esoteric subject for it to deserve FA status. Qwghlm 10:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectively disagree - there should be nothing preventing it getting to FA status should it meet the FA criteria, no matter how esoteric you consider it to be! I don't even think it is that esoteric, no more so than, say, History of Lithuania (1219–1295). Anyway, whatever direction you take with the article, well done on an excellent job. Let me know if I can support you further. The Rambling Man 10:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]