Wikipedia:Peer review/1985 Wales vs Scotland football match/archive1

1985 Wales vs Scotland football match

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 I would like to see the quality scale of it improved if possible. I feel that I have done as much with it as I possibly can, and now wish to have fresh eyes look at it and see if it needs improving.

Hammersfan (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can do this review. Hammersfan: can you reply here and let me know if you have a specific goal, such as getting the article to featured article status; or to good article status? --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it can get to an improved status from Class B that would be great. But I'm more concerned to make sure that it's as good as it can possibly be, and I don't think I can do any more with it. Thanks Hammersfan (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the next step up is good article status, so I'll use that as the goal. --Noleander (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

Lead: Footnotes are not required in the Lead section: yet there are 2 there, which seems odd. Are those facts not in the body (non-lead) portion of the article? Every fact in the lead must also be in the body - so make sure the facts are down there (with footnotes), and consider removing the footnotes from the lead.
Links: It is customary to link the first occurrence of key terms _after_ the lead, e.g. in "The World Cup qualifier at Ninian Park ..." the WC and NP should be linked. Yes, they are already linked in the lead, but it is customary to also link them at 1st occurrance after that.
Wording: "Context" is a strange term for a section heading. How about "background" or "History" or ...?
Quotes: Using large quotes in the middle of the article is generally discouraged, but not prohibited. If you think it makes the article better, you can leave them. See Wikipedia:Overquoting and Wikipedia:Quotations. Most great articles use just a few quotes, and they are usually embedded directly within the text.
Terminology: "converted the penalty to bring ..." - some readers may not know what "converted" means. Link it or use another word. Pretend that the reader is someone that is a layman that knows very little about sports or football.
clarify: "with the 12,000 members of the Tartan Army ..." - readers may not know that that is a fan group ... don't make them click a link to figure it out.
Wording: "undeniable sense of deja vu in that,..." - the phrase "deja vu" is a bit slangy; try to find a more academic/professional phrasing.
Cause of death: - This appears rather late in the article: " In later years it was revealed that it was not a heart attack, but rather pulmonary oedema (fluid in the lungs) as a result of heart disease that caused Stein's death." That fact should be presented up where the death occurs.
Reference sections: (1) the two external links in the bottom of the article should be in a section named "External Links" (see WP:LAYOUT. (2) If there is a key book (or other item) that really covers this topic well, that can be in a section named "Further Reading". It looks like the article's sources are mostly newspaper & magazine stories, which is okay, but the section title "Sources" is not used properly right now.
Pictures: Use of pictures is great. Good job.
Citations: Lots of foonotes: just about one per sentence, which is ideal.
Pic captions: In a perfect article, the pic captions also have footnotes, so readers dont have to scan the adjacent prose to hunt for the citation.
Caps in section titles: Caps are not used in section titles except for the 1st letter & proper names. Not sure if "Qualification" or "Government" should be capitalized. Maybe the are okay as-is.
Wording: " But, for the second placed team .." - Remove "but" at beginning: it adds nothing.
Clarify: " the second placed teams in each of these groups would advance to a play-off round" - ? only the 2nd place team? or the 1st and 2nd? Is it more accurate to say "the top two teams"?
Year? - "Indeed, as a result of Heysel, the Belgian government banned football teams from the whole of the United Kingdom on the 1st June, with the ban only lifted in December 1986" - Need to specify the year that 1st June is in.
Wording: "The bustling nature of the encounter .." - "bustling" is not quite right, at least, many readers won't know what is intended here. Also, what is "encounter" referring to? the entire match? or a single incident between two players? Re-write sentence to be clearer.
Clarify: "As a consequence, the fact that the goalkeeper even needed lenses was something not widely known, even among his team mates, Alex Ferguson (who was also Leighton's club manager at Aberdeen) or, more importantly, to Stein." - This does not make it clear if AF or Stein knew or did not know. "not widely known" means some people knew. Later, more detail is given that shows Stein didnt know, but how about AF? Reword that sentence to remove the ambiguity.
Grammar: "The news filtered out slowly - first the players were told, before Souness appeared before the waiting press pack to tell them that the manager had died." - Not optimal. "before" should be "then"? or maybe re-cast entire sentence.
That is all for now. Overall, it is a fine article. If you implement the above suggestions, you can then nominate it for GA status at WP:GAN. That should be easy to attain. Then, if you want, you can go for FA status, which is very stringent (you'll have to remove those large quotes, etc) but feasible. Good luck!

End noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]