Wikipedia:Peer review/Middlesbrough F.C./archive2

Middlesbrough 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 (Middlesbrough FC) for peer review because I'd like to see how it could get to FA status - if it could at all. I feel we've built on the improvements made by the last review, and was wondering whether we've done enought to get it sorted, or if its still needs tidying up.

Thanks, Mofs (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, I was the only person to respond to the previous peer review. I hope I'm not the only one to respond this time.

Middlesbrough Football Club (commonly known as The Boro) - I have only ever heard fans of the club itself use "The Boro", so it is misleading to say "commonly known as". You wouldn't expect "The Boro" to be used on Match of the Day, for example. On a similar note, I think using "Boro" in the body of the text is too informal for an encyclopedia. (e.g. Over the next two seasons, Boro gained successive promotions).
The club came close to folding in 1986 after experiencing severe financial difficulties before the club was saved by a consortium led by then board member and current chairman Steve Gibson. - This either needs more punctuation or splitting into two sentences.
The number of external links seems excessive, take a look at Wikipedia:External links and remove some accordingly.
If you take the article to featured article candidates the reliability of sources will inevitably be scrutinised. Several fansites are used as references. What makes them reliable?
The list of club staff seems excessively exhaustive. A yardstick I use for inclusion in these sections is "Would this person be notable enough to have an article if they were only known for their current role" (i.e. not for a being a former player).
Are the colours used by the club when they first formed known?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

Get rid of italics from the nickname in the infobox. If it was meant to be in italics, it would be in the infobox code.
I'd use commas instead of brackets, for "also known as The Boro"
I'd change "currently playing", as per WP:DATE, to "who play" or "who are members of".
There is no subject for the verb in "and have only spent two seasons outside of the Football League's top two divisions". Perhaps change to and they have.
"with a varying amount of white." Seems very informal. I'd change to red and white, or red with a white band.
Use non-breaking spaces between a number and its noun. E.g. 22 years.
£1000 ought to have a comma, e.g. £1,000.
World War I and II should be First World War and Second World War.
"In 1903" etc are introductory phrases and so should be followed by a comma. There's quite a lot of these reading further down.
I'd suggest using sixth and third instead of 6th and 3rd.
You've flipped between First Division and Division Two. Stick to one style.
wl Third Division North.
You flip between singular and plural verbs for the club or team. Again stick to one style. I think Engish clubs are typically plural.
"20 year spell". Probably better hyphenated as 20-year-spell or 20-year spell.
"The FA Cup saw the club never get past the quarter-finals, a feat they were still yet to accomplish in their history." This is very clumsy and I don't know what it means.
I wouldn't start a season with 1975-76. Perhaps The 1975-76 season
Either wl or explain "Provisional Liquidator"
wl The Football League
emdashes should be unspaced.
Perhaps hypenate locally-born.
The supporters section is predominantly made up of shorter paragraphs. I'd look at rectifying that if you want to push it to FAC.
Perhaps left align the picture of Boro supporters.
Why the bold in the "community" section?
I'm not sure you need all those "club staff" listed.
References should become before external links.

I think the lead could do with expanding a little per WP:LEAD.
Why are some publishers in the reflist list in italics, some not?
I think the reliability of some of the references may be questioned at FAC.
There seems to be a high use of the official website in the references. Again it may be questioned at FAC.

Hope this helps. Peanut4 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]