Wikipedia:Peer review/RC Strasbourg/archive1

RC Strasbourg

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; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it but I am not really WP-litterate yet, so I am not really sure that it is exactly what is expected. In addition, English is only a second language for me, so maybe some excerpts will look weird to native speakers. It would help me a lot should reviewers point to the most problematic parts of the article so that I can focus my work.

Thanks, Zitelli67 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has certainly improved thanks to your work. A variety of points:

For an article of this size, the lead section should be two or three paragraphs. See WP:LEAD.
External links should not be present within the text, only as references or in the "External links" section at the bottom.
The pictures of the crests on scarves are not correctly licensed. The crest itself is copyrighted, so while the photograph can be licensed under a Creative Commons license, the crest it depicts cannot be freely licensed. See derivative work for more context.
A particularly bewildering one for newcomers: Dashes in scorelines and date ranges should be endashes, not hyphens, see WP:DASH. In English, scores are very rarely presented using colons (i.e. 0–0, not 0:0).
For the "former players" section, it is not always clear why players ar included. Splitting this off into an article List of RC Strasbourg players is perhaps appropriate. See List of Ipswich Town F.C. players for an example. I'd also argue against the inclusion of players who did not play internationally while at Strasbourg. It is players noted for their achievements with Strasbourg that we are concerned with, not those who found their success elsewhere.
For the list of coaching staff, a personal rule of thumb is to only include individuals notable enough to merit an article.

More to follow later. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your time and advice. I have fixed the en dash thing (definitely learned some thing here, I had never noticed the difference before!) and expanded the lead to three paragraphs. I will do the rest shortly (pictures, etc.)

As far as external links are concerned, I will remove those for the supporters sites but I thought the ones used for match sheets were quite interesting since these are not available on WP (as opposed to cup finals for example where I made an internal link). Is it mandatory to remove these links or is it just preferable?

The notable player section: I definitely need to work on that... Difficult to struck a satisfying middle ground for this section, very subjective. For example Djorkaeff never had caps with France when at Strasbourg but clearly had its breakthrough there when he was a youngster. I will figure out something.Zitelli67 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I corrected the licensing for the pictures. For the notable players section I went back to the older version, clearly this table of internationals was too long and I'll save it for the List of RC Strasbourg players you suggested (when I have time!). I included in the article all RCS player who had caps with France when at Strasbourg and some others that I consider notable enough. As far as coaching staff is concerned, I took the idea to include it from the Arsenal FC article... I thought that I could do that since for example every pro player is included in the "current squad" section even though some of them have yet to play a game with the first team. Again, many thanks for your helpful comments. Zitelli67 (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of RC Strasbourg players is done according to similar criterias as the Ipswich one, thanks for the indication. As of now, I donnot really see what I could improve in the article. Do you or others still have suggestions? I would still find it useful if a native English speaker could check the article for the general style. I also find it a bit discouraging that the article is still rated as "start" since there are many other articles that are in my opinion not as good but have better ratings :( Zitelli67 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]