Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester United F.C./archive7

Manchester United F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it just failed at FAC. I need to know what to do to improve this article to FA standards, so please take this into account when reviewing. Many thanks in advance. Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sandman888 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a ce, I'm not the one to ask, but go to the PR mainpage, there's a link to volunteers. Get an editor to ce it, and say so when nominating it for FA next time :)
I've gone through most of the FAC objections, those are not points I can help you with. I don't have any books on manu. But try to loan a copy of an established dictionary (like Britannica or Oxford or both) and reference everything that can possible be referenced to it. Will give sources more weight. Sorry I cannot help more. Sandman888 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I'm going to add/remove everything recommended at FAC then ask (very nicely!) someone to copyedit. Regards sources, the only ones that were in question were unitedkits, pride of machester and historicalkits. I appreciate why could be conceived as being unreliable but they really are the authoritative sources of kits on the internet. Nonetheless, would it help if I went down to the Manchester United museum, and confirmed everything (they have a year by year thing down there), and then add it into the notes that I've verified everything? Tomlock01 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just add man u museum as a source, that'll work fine. It meets the requirements at wp:rs. Nowhere is it said a place can't be a source. Sandman888 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that though? Just add a reference (like <ref></ref>) where ever one of those sites was referenced, or add it in the 'Notes' section? And shall I replace all the current references, or use the museum as a supplementary source? Thanks, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not sure, how the format shd be. i wd say supplementary. Try ask at wt:rs :) Sandman888 (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oldelpaso

Just a small number of picky ones this time:

The team initially played games against other departments and rail companies, but in 1888 became a founding member of The Combination - makes it seem like a sudden change, when it was a gradual increase in reputation. Not quite sure how to convey this in a sufficiently concise manner. Maybe simply by changing "but in 1888" to "but by 1888".

Excellent point.Tomlock01 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on 26 April 1902, Manchester United was officially born - no one gave birth to a football club. More importantly though, there is dispute about the date. Now I don't have United-only books for obvious reasons, but here is an abridged passage from Gary James' Manchester: A Football History from 2008 which puts the date as 24 April: "Like so many other football clubs, myths have developed and inaccuracies overlooked... ...Every Manchester newspaper of the period has been reviewed for this book and it is clear the meeting was definitely held on 24th April... ...not on 28th April as United's own official histories claim, nor the 26th as the enormous United Opus records. The Manchester Evening Chronicle was the first to report the story with their 25th April edition, while the Manchester Evening News followed on 26th April."

Born can mean both "brought into life by birth" and "brought into existence; created", it says so in the dictionary. Regards date, what do you recommend then? I've got 2 books on Manchester United (the rest are in the loft), and they both say 26th. Shall we change it to the 24th, with your reference, and then add a footnote about the dispute?Tomlock01 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. The book details are in cite book format at User:Oldelpaso/Sources, its page 92. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get someone to audit use of the discretionary plural so that it is consistent. I would do it myself but I'm frankly terrible at it.

I thought that the whole point of the discretionary plural was that it was discretionary, as such it does not need to be consistent. But since this point is never going to lie, I guess it should be consistent to keep everyone happy.Tomlock01 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but I thought I'd raise it because if I didn't, someone undoubtedly would do at FAC. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kit sources - there is a book called True Colours which covers colours for every team in the Premier League from about 1980 to 2005–06, which might help. Maybe your local library will have a copy. Actually, I see second hand copies are on Amazon priced at a penny. At that price I'm tempted to order it myself. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I've just ordered it.Tomlock01 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Casliber

I buffed the lead a little with what I saw to be the most salient other points - Busby's Babes, Munich and the fact they went on to more success despite 1958. I am musing on whether mentioning Bobby Charlton and George Best in the lead was warranted. Not sure. Glad there is a section on Global brand and discusses the profile. I can add my voice to Malleus' that MU has a much higher profile than just any other English club - it was the club everyone had heard of in oz and lots support. My impression was that munich and the team's recovery from, as well as players like Charlton and later Best captured the public's imagination. Anyway. It's looking better. The Global brand does make me cringe a little the way its written but not sure whether some alternative springs to mind yet. I don't think it is too far off FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that maybe the 'Busby years (1945–1969) section could be expanded a little as it was a glory period.

Thanks for your comments Casliber, and for spending the time to copy edit! Do you mean the title 'Global brand' or the entire section makes you cringe? Brianboulton has said the sources are fine, but I'm going to change the sources like unitedkits.co.uk to the book that I have ordered above.Tomlock01 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, para 2 of that section came across a bit like it was written by a couple of junior advertising executives, but I couldn't think of alternative words and the material is what it is. Not sure I feel too strongly about it. No-one else seems to have minded so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looked fine to me, and as I've already told Tom, I think this new section was exactly what the article was missing before. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I absolutely agree it is necessary - hard to convince some poms of just how remote the ~~cancer~~ support of United has grown (shudder) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]