Wikipedia:Peer review/Leicester City F.C./archive1

Leicester City F.C.

This article has been expanding recently and some good works been done on it. Which area would now need the most attention. I know some of the history bts are short but they've recently been modified from about 20 different sub-headers. Also would you say the notable player could be expanded to include more about each player rather than the list it is right now. Jimmmmmmmmm 15:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look at the currently featured football club articles (Arsenal, Everton, IFK Göteborg, Manchester City and Sheffield Wednesday) to get a grip on what is generally needed to gain FA status. And few more specific issues:
1. Shorten down history section, and create History of Leicester City F.C., where you place the full the history. Try to balance the history section in the main article, currently, the last 15 years have as much text as the 100 years before that.
2. Missing sections most likely needed are colours, crest, stadium and supporters. Check the articles above to see what they should contain.
3. Remove the trivia section, info from it should be converted to prose if possible.
4. Convert honours section to a shorter format, once again, see mentioned articles for that.
5. Shorten down the manager list by making a separate article and only listing notable managers in the main article.
6. Shorten down the records & statistics article in the same way.
7. You will probably need to have more in-line references for parts of the text if you want it to gain FA status.
That's all for now. I am not a native speaker of English so I will not comment on the prose. – Elisson • Talk 19:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the article a lot recently. Here are my comments. Addressing Elisson's suggestions:

1. Agreed-most/all football featured articles have a separate History article. There should be balance, but remember there have been three promotions, three relegations, two unsucessful playoffs and three league cup finals in the last 15 years.
2. Colours-good idea (here is a excellent source 2. Crest-I don't think this deserves a full section, perhaps a combined colours and crest section. 3. Stadium-I don't think a full section is necessary-there are separate articles on Walkers Stadium and Filbert Street, the former stadium. IMO we don't need to say anymore about the stadium in the Leicester City F.C. article. 4. Supporters- Good idea, no need for more than a short paragraph. Should mention rivalries: Forest, Coventry, Derby. Chants: "Are you watching Mark McGhee?" etc, fanzines: The Fox (any others)
3. Trivia section-perhaps it should be removed, but then again the Arsenal article has a section called "Arsenal in Popular Culture"-effectively a trivia section. But it is prose, not bullet points.
4. Honours-good idea, i'll change it to the more economical format.
5. Manager list-agree that it is probably best to create new article, but I don't agree only notable managers should stay in the main article. In the Arsenal article, the main article has a table with all the managers in it. I think we should copy that table.
6. Records/statistics-I don't think there is enough yet to create a separate article like Everton_F.C._records. I would keep it in the main article for now. Perhaps do away with the current records section-after all people can go to sports website if they want current info, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.
7. References-I disagree with more inline references. When I was re-writing the history, I used mainly the history at the official site as a source. I can't artifically add inline footnotes for references that don't exist.

Looking at the Arsenal page, there are two section we could consider adding "Ownership" and "Leicester Ladies" (which is quite successful, if I remember correctly). We also need good quality photos-of the Walkers Stadium to start with. A picture of Filbert Street would be nice as well, but might be difficult to obtain under a free licence. Deus Ex 23:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Elisson's points, and I think article needs a lot of work. Some suggestions:

The introduction is too long and disjointed. Just stick to where the team play, a brief summary of honours (starting with the trophies won). Drop the mentions of famous players and managers, and any European runs unless they were really successful.
The prose needs improvement. Example:

Leicester have somewhat of a reputation of being a "yo-yo" team (a team the moves up and down leagues). Statistics suggest that this is deserved, since Leicester hold the record for the most promotions and relegations in the Football League, 11 moves up and 11 down...

This just reads all wrong, it's ambiguous weasel words which are only half-backed up with a factual statement; they may well hold the record but there is no citable reference about their reputation. Just trim it and stick to the facts, e.g.:

Leicester hold the record for the most promotions and relegations in the Football League - 11 moves up and 11 moves down...

Other examples of bad prose, either because it is POV, unverifiable or in an unencyclopaedic tone: "Probably Leicester's most successful manager...", "an unwanted record in English football", "the perception that Walkers Crisps paid a pittance".
Some sentences are stubby and too abrupt. e.g. the second sentence here:

An image of a fox was first incorporated into the club crest in 1948, as Leicestershire is known for foxes and fox hunting. This is the origin of the nickname "the Foxes".

Since the two sentences share the same theme, a better use would be a single sentence:

The club's nickname is "the Foxes", and a fox has featured on the club crest since 1948, as Leicestershire is well-known for its foxes and foxhunting.

A spellcheck would be a good thing; for example, the history section misspells Lineker as Linekar.
History section should come first, and be much shorter - consider splitting it off, as suggested above. It also needs more balance and less focus on very recent events and more on the past.
Convert all inline external links (e.g. in the colours section) to proper footnotes. Use templates such as {{cite web}} as well.
You definitely need more information about the club's different stadiums. There is virtually nothing here at the moment.
Use link piping throughout the text, especially club names e.g. Tottenham Hotspur, not Tottenham Hotspur F.C., it looks awkward and disruptive otherwise.
Article lacks images of the stadium or the team playing - if you can find suitably freely-licensed ones, add them in.
All managers' names in the list should be wikified, and the commentary on their abilities dropped for NPOV reasons; if you are going to accompany it with information on their performance, use something citable like win/loss statistics.
The list of "notable players" is always a problem as you will never get an agreed list of players under an objective criterion which is short enough for inclusion. Just supply a link to the main list page, as the Liverpool F.C. and Arsenal F.C. articles do, unless a greatest-ever team or squad was ever chosen by the club as Everton and Manchester City have done, in which case use that.
Statistics and records should be formatted either as bullets or if in a table, using class="wikitable", not the current colour scheme which looks ugly.
I would just mention the current record holder in the records section, not the past ones as well.
Mentions of the changes in the English league structure (First Division becoming Premier League etc.) in the honours section should be relegated to footnotes.
Split references section into footnotes and general references.
"Further information" should become "Bibliography"
The external links should be trimmed - no forums or weblogs, and obscure or minor sites should be dropped. See WP:EL for more information.

Right, that'll do for starters. There are other issues (some of tone, some extra citations are needed) but I'll wait until the prose is properly rewritten before tackling them. Qwghlm 11:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Qwghlm, I've done some work. I know the history is still to long and there may be a few spelling mistake here and there but I've tried to lengthen sentences and cut out pointless info. Removed the stats and made into a section rather than the ugly tables. Added Stadiums section. Footnotes in the honours section. Cut down the intro. Got info on managers re games. Nothing I can find on the earlier one's guess they're just not so well publicised as Arsenals. Give me you thoughts. Like I say I know it's not finished it's a work in progress. Jimmmmmmmmm 19:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right I'm resubmitting this for a second review. I've done some work recently collecting references and starting a rivalries section. Also I shortern down the managers list and started a new article with the full list. The takeover section is a mess at the moment but as it is due to go through today (12/02/07) or tomorrow I will clean then, whilst it's all still up in the air I can't see much point. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived the first Peer Review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Leicester City F.C./Archive1 and set up a new second review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Leicester City F.C./archive2 - all further discussion should take place there. Qwghlm 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]