Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Leeds United A.F.C./archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leeds United A.F.C.

[edit]

Been working on this for a while. Interested to know where it stand in terms of it' quality.Buc 16:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some suggestions:
    • Leeds were deducted 15 points, not 25.
    • Be consistent on usage of the singular or plural when referring to the club - use one or the other throughout.
    • Leeds United have always had a loyal and passionate fanbase - subjective term, and this paragraph on the supporters should be a secion on its own, not in the lead.
    • Elland Road is said to have... - weasel words and the same can be said of most if not all stadiums of its size.
    • History section could be abridged a little (as there already is a daughter article devoted to it), and rejigged so as not to to be recentist - the period 1998 to the present day takes up nearly half the section.
I found this page by what links to recentism... just wanted to comment that "The aim should not be to remove information about recent events (see wikipedia:deletionism and wikipedia:inclusionism), but to add information of the same detail to other events." ... IOW I think history shouldn't be deleted just because you can't find information on older years. Peace, MPS 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Leeds City F.C., was formed in 1904 by the committee and supporters. - this does not make sense. Whose committee and supporters? All football clubs are essentially formed by committee and supporters so this is more or less stating the obvious.
    • Image:Charity Shield.jpg and Image:Bremner And Revie.jpg look like scans from a book or taken from a website - I strongly doubt the uploaders have the right to licence the work under GFDL. Image:Ellandrd.jpg may well be licensable but the original site provides no licensing information.
    • Phrases such as "league champions" and "first division" should be capitalised.
    • "they became probably the leading English football club" - either they were or they weren't. Get rid of this unless you can properly back it up.
    • The quality of the writing in the history section needs to be tightened, there are lots of weasel words - e.g. "Whilst recognised as one of the finest post-war British teams", "Most Leeds supporters would give Gray the benefit of the doubt", "The fans and pundits saw a new vigorous and dynamic Leeds United side."
    • Some words and phrases are overwikilinked (e.g. Division One) link the first time and avoid doing so for all subsequent mentions.
    • Leeds controversially[6] appointed George Graham. - explain the controversy and don't rely on a single weblink to one fan's opinion as a citation.
    • "were brutally stabbed" - POV. It's not as if people are often gently stabbed to death.
    • "Although the general public were unaware..." - this is not actually true. I distinctly remember reading about Leeds' ambitious financial plans at the time Ridsdale did so. As it is worded, it makes out Ridsdale intentionally deceived the public, which is not entirely true.
    • Trivia section should be removed, and the individual items folded & combined with other ones in the article or in other listy articles such as English football records. Any that can't be merged elsewhere should be removed.
    • Get rid of the 2006-07 transfers - Wikipedia is not a news service.
    • The incredibly long listing of analysts, coaches, stadium MC, mascot etc. should be deleted and restricted only to the top staff at the club.
    • The Records and Managers section should have some prose - a paragraph or two, summarising the main pages they link to.
    • Nothing worth mentioning about the team's stadium(s)? Seems odd.
    • A section about the colours and crest would be good too.
    • Finally - this is not related to the article being reviewed but I notice that Leeds United A.F.C. Managers replicates a lot of Leeds United A.F.C. History; for the sake of avoiding unnecessary duplication some agreement should be made as to the scope of each article so they do not overlap too much. Also all the daughter articles should be correctly capitalised (e.g. Leeds United A.F.C. history). Qwghlm 00:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of quality, the article is better than most, but if you are intending to take the article to good or featured status there is still more to do. Good article standard isn't too far off though. More or less all of the things I would recommend are already mentioned by Qwghlm, a couple of additions:

  • There are a few things which could do with citations. Examples include Leeds City being forcibly disbanded and the claim that the European Cup defeat to Bayern Munich was controversial. In essence, anything which a sceptical reader might challenge should be cited.
  • Licensing for the existing pictures is mentioned above. It shouldn't be too hard to obtain or create one or more free license pictures relating to Leeds United, a photo of Elland Road for example.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 12:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have met most of the suggestions made.

  • Couldn't find "Elland Road is said to have..."
  • Not sure what to do about the images or the colours and crest section (probably needs more images), they sound like quite big jobs.
  • Looks to me like the records and mangers section already have a summary. But I'm not sure they're are even needed considering they are linked to in the "Leeds United Association Football Club" template at the bottem.
  • A minor note but the background to the crest image needs changing.

Buc 16:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts, above to the ones which still stand:
  • Article is still over-wikified in places (e.g. First Division is still linked to multiple times in the History section)
  • The prose needs some polishing up. It's unwieldy - the tone is not formal enough, facts are not put succinctly, and there is too much repetition of terms and use of filler words: e.g.:
At the start of the season, Graham brought in some bargain buys and introduced Australian youngster Harry Kewell from the youth team. At the end of the season Leeds booked its place in the UEFA Cup for the next season. The 1998-99 season saw Graham move to become manager of the north London club Tottenham Hotspur.
  • Which could be much more simply expressed:
At the start of 1997-98, Graham brought in some inexpensive signings and Australian youngster Harry Kewell, and Leeds qualified for the UEFA Cup that season. The next season, however, Graham left for Tottenham Hotspur.
  • Still some weasel words (though I have tagged them) and POV terms (which should be obvious).
  • Don't put current injury status in the current squad section - it's not what they're meant for and WP:NOT a news service.
  • As United are a separate club from Leeds City, Herbert Chapman should not be included in the list of notable managers and the founding date should only 1919.
  • There's something terrifically ugly about that list of sponsors. Perhaps it's the blank dark grey cell in the top right, or the fact the with many the same words are repeated several times over in adjacent cells - maybe use the rowspan attribute and merge them together? Qwghlm 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last thing - the {{fc}} template should be substituted. Qwghlm 22:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed some of these problems. Not sure what the rowspan attribute is but I've tried to tidy the table up anyway. Two major problems still stand out though:
  • Lack of citation
  • Unlicensed images

Buc 17:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still tidying up the text, trying to make it a bit more concise and objective - a few more typos/grammar issues to sort out as well. Can I ask whether anyone wants the "Rivalries" and "Supporters" sections? I don't think they add anything to the article and are probably subjective. Thoughts/comments?

Coopuk 18:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not fussed if the sections are removed but I think the info in them should be kept in some form.Buc 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas/thoughts on where those two sections could/should be placed? I don't think they are in keeping with the main article, as I think you could argue that the content of both is subjective. I don't think they should reside under the "Leeds United History" page either. Coopuk 12:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters under Stadium and Rivalries could be removed, since it's really about Leeds, or brefly mentioned in the lead. Crest and colours sections needs exspanding.Buc 11:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Leeds_United_A.F.C./archive1&oldid=328385403"