Wikipedia:Peer review/Turf Moor/archive1

Turf Moor

I've worked the last couple of days on this article to possibly nominate this at FAC and I'm curious where it stands in terms of quality. Is it comprehensive, covers it all details, is it clear? Any comments will be appreaciated.

Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Kosack

• "on the Harry Potts Way", is "the" necessary here?
  • Removed (twice). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• The history section is the start of the article really, so beginning with the phrase "In the early days" is rather ambigious. If that's referring to the information from 1833 in the following sentence, I would merge with that I think. Perhaps begin with "Sport has been played... At the time, the Turf Moor area was composed..." if that makes sense.
  • Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• "averaged at around 2,000", the "at" is probably unnecessarily elongating the sentence here.
  • Removed. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• "crowd of 12,000 were in the stadium", in the stadium sounds a little grandiose considering the next sentence references spectators assembling around the pitch or on a nearby hill. Perhaps "at the ground" is a little more accurate?
  • Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• As pictures of the early days are likely scarce, perhaps an Ordnance Survey map would be helpful to include, similar to File:Ninian Park OS map.jpg?
  • There are already some older pictures of Turf Moor on Commons, but they won't pass the image review. Thanks for the tip, I've found a decent Ordance Survey map, so I'll try to include it. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally, when linking seasons, it's more typical to include season in the link, for example 1911-12 season rather than 1911-12 season, as it's a potential WP:EASTEREGG really.
  • Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• "had not been completed, however, so players", the however is probably unnecessary here, the sentence works fine without it.
  • Removed. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Link captain to Captain (association football).
  • Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• "against main rivals Blackburn Rovers", local rivals perhaps or main local rivals if they have more than one?
  • Blackburn is obviously the main one, but "local rivals" also works (and to align with the rest of the text). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• "The stadium's redevelopment continued", this sentence is a little long and could be split into two at "but".
  • Split. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Lord then replaced the Brunshaw Road" > Brunshaw Road Stand?
  • I wanted to avoid having the word "stand" at least twice in the same sentence, but it could be regarded as if he wanted to replace the road instead of the stand. Added. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• "The Taylor Report from 1990, which was created", I would think a report is published rather than created?
  • Amended. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• "their season on the second level", on the second level reads a little oddly to me. Perhaps at or in?
  • "At" works. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Eleven paragraphs for a single section with no heading breaks is quite a lot. Perhaps add a subheading or two?
  • Added some. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• "as he even attempted to buy the club in 1989", should this be and he even...?
  • Changed. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• An FAC review might ask for the locations to be included with the book publishers, so be prepared for that.
  • Thanks. I own all books except for the Adams one, so it should be fine. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I've had a run through and this is a few minor points that I picked out. I think this article is of sufficient quality for a run at FAC in any case. I haven't dug into the sourcing really, but you've been to FAC before so make sure your sourcing is tight etc. Kosack (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Kosack Thank you very much for the review. I'll try to include an old map into the article. I've also requested a copy edit but I'm not sure if it's really needed. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)