Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester City F.C. seasons/archive1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article had a failed nomination at featured list candidates a few months ago. Since then a number of similar lists for other football clubs have gained featured list status (e.g. Aston Villa F.C. seasons). What does this one require in order to join them? Oldelpaso (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Oldelpaso, here are some pointers which may be of use.

Use the en-dash for season separators.
Have you got an image we could use?
Lead is a bit unbalanced - short long short - consider merging into two medium size paras.
If "ordinary matches" is italicised for a reason then it should be linked or explained.
The lead also is primarily about pre-1900 Manchester City - like it's suffering from anti-recentism! I'd rework it a bit to cover a general history in a couple of paras rather than focus on the early days.
Write an article for Hugh Morris, and other top-scorers without articles.
Cup rounds in the table could be abbreviated, centrally aligned and then added into the key.
A trend has come about to bold the new division when going up or down (that may make the end of the table all bold, I know but it's easier for us to see.
S. Turnbull or Sandy Turnbull? And don't use /, just use a line break.
I don't like World War I, I prefer First World War. Same for WWII.
"Subsidiary Tourn. 1st" - what does this signify?
Check out some of the cell colourings in say Ipswich Town F.C. seasons for winning, runners-up etc.
Cup Winners' Cup winner etc - link to relevant season's tournament articles.

A few more to add to those from TRM.

I prefer R1, R2, etc for the progress in the cups, then a key at the bottom. It looks cleaner and easier to read.
Not fully necessary, but I'd link repetitions of top scorers
Perhaps bold the divisions for a change of division, and bold positions / cups when they're won.
Do you have refs for the 1894-95 & 1895-96 FA Cups to explain why Man C didn't enter and then were withdrawn?
Try splitting the Others column (see Bradford City A.F.C. seasons or Leeds United A.F.C. seasons. It keeps it nicely aligned and makes it easier to read.
Perhaps put the key at the bottom.
Can you create entries for the two red-linked Lge Cup finals.

Some of these were things on which opinion was divided on the FLC. Subsequent FLC's appear to have resulted in consensus on most of them, which I have now done. An exception is the colouring of winners and runners-up. The colours seem too high contrast to me, and tournaments won are already bolded.
A couple more are explained by the fact I attempted to keep the list in one screen width on 1024x768, but this has proved too difficult, so I have now abandoned it.
I've referenced the failure to enter the FA Cup in 1894-95, but the reason for the withdrawal the following season is not clear. It is likely that the club viewed the Manchester Cup as a higher priority, but the exact reason for withdrawal is unknown. A home tie against Oswaldtwistle Rovers was scheduled but never played.
I'll take a look at revamping the lead.
Creating articles for the redlinks is an ongoing project. I have part-articles for some of them in userspace, but in a couple of cases there is very little information in modern publications. I won't blacklink them as an article would be possible, just very difficult - getting anything beyond basic statistical information would involve spending lots of time in the archives section of Manchester Central Library. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People have already said most of what I would have done. Few odd bits:

I'm not particularly keen on the gaudy orange and grey colouring for winners and runners-up either, though the compromise version implemented on Birmingham City F.C. seasons isn't too intrusive. Winners/runners-up is abbreviated to W/RU, the colouring is only applied to cup competitions (not league position as on Leeds Utd) and, for the Other comps column, only the Round column gets coloured. At least I do notice the gold/silver, which is more than I can say for the whatever-colour-it-is that indicates promotion, which is why I always nagged for bolding the change of division as an additional aid for the colour-visually-impaired.

Seeing as the mcfcstats fixtures/results pages for the war years don't match the information shown here, I'm assuming your War league info comes from book sources. It'd help if you added a note giving a basic idea of what they were called, how they worked, as there don't seem to be Wiki articles for anything but the 1945–46 league and the Football League War Cup.
- What are the discrepancies specifically? Some of the WW2 matches counted for both league and cup but are only listed as cup matches on mcfcstats. Would this explain it? Oldelpaso (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In general, it is the cup games counting towards the league as well, but that's the sort of thing that needs explaining, on the offchance anyone's persistent enough to fight their way through mcfcstats to look it up. One miscellaneous discrepancy is that mcfcstats 1941-42 has only 16 second-half games where you have 17. Struway2 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where you link to a particular season of the UEFA Cup, I'd probably link the Round column rather than the competition name. Where there are several occurrences of Charity Shield (for instance) all linking to the main CS article, the reader might be led to expect all the occurrences of UEFA Cup just to link to the main UEFA Cup article thus not being worth clicking, but if the Round is linked, the reader might realise it's a link to something specific.

- I see your point, but I think that it would introduce its own inconsistencies, as I wouldn't want to, say, link every season's FA Cup article in the same way. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]