Wikipedia:Peer review/1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
In May 1999, Manchester United Football Club won an unprecedented treble of trophies and arguably completed the most successful season in their history and perhaps English football. The season will live long in the memory of United fans because of the climax in the Champions League final but also to football fans in all walks of life, notably as they recorded the biggest away defeat in Premier League history and perhaps contributed to the best FA Cup semi-final in recent times. Off the field, it was a season of controversy – the club were on the brink of takeover by Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB, resulting in the involvement of the government. This article has recieved a peer review before which prose was identified as the biggest concern; subsequently being addressed. It holds a WP:GA standing but I am curious to see if this can be a WP:FAC. As of now, there isn't any season articles which have met the criteria. Does there need to be more depth in coverage, how can the WP:LEAD be improved? Any comments or suggestions will be welcome. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comments by Sarastro
Overall, this article does a fairly good job, but there are several other things I would expect a FA on such a topic to cover. I have not read the whole article in detail, but covered the first half in some depth. However, several issues stand out throughout. These comments are mainly just examples, and before considering nominating this at FAC, I would recommend a copy-editor going through carefully. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Lead
- I'm not too sure the lead needs as many references as it has. Everything is covered in the main body, so why does it need a reference in the lead unless it is a direct quote?
- Be careful saying that Man Utd were the first side to complete the treble; yes for that particular treble, but I can almost hear Liverpool fans muttering.
- Personally, I wouldn't list the defeats in the lead and leave it at "lost only five times". Just listing these, especially the Middlesborough defeat, seems over-detailed for the lead.
- "The big news of the pre-season was the arrival of Dutch defender Jaap Stam…": "Big news" is tabloidy and POV. Better to say: "During pre-season, Dutch defender Jaap Stam was signed for a club record fee of £10.75 million."
- "Goalkeeper Peter Schmeichel announced his intention to leave the club after eight years at Old Trafford,[4] joining Sporting Clube de Portugal at the end of the season." Doesn't quite fit here, after listing signings, and the chronology is further disrupted by the comment about the end of the season (maybe rephrase to "stated his intention to join…" or "and eventually joined …"). Maybe move it to the start of the paragraph, before the departures? And it should say at what point he made the announcement: pre-season? During the season?
- "The team's never-say-die attitude…": This may be referenced, but as written this looks to be editorial voice and gives the impression that WIkipedia thinks the team has a never-say-die attitude.
- Similar POV following this: "was key to their success as the players often thrived in difficult situations. The highlight was United's dramatic comeback…" Possible re-phrase: "Critics believed that the key to the team's success was their never-say-die attitude [not comfortable with this phrase, though] and the players' ability [not crazy about this word, but can't think of any better way to put this right now] to thrive in difficult situations. The highlight for fans was the dramatic comeback…"
- "The treble haul is often regarded by fans and writers as manager Alex Ferguson's finest hour, although he has dismissed that assertion in later years.": Is the rebuttal really necessary?
- Charity shield
- "Roy Keane made his comeback after almost a year out injured, and Jaap Stam debuted in central defence.": Ref?
- FA Premier League
A few issues in this section:
- Tabloid style/football jargon not suitable for an encyclopaedia: e.g. "Muzzy Izzet’s cross was met by Emile Heskey to scuff the ball into the net", "last gasp free kick", "salvage a point", "in perfect stead", "mauling", "clear-cut chances", "dragged back to the summit", and several more.
- POV language: "match was marred", "comprehensive defeat [better to give the score]", "deservedly beat", "break the jinx [if this was Ferguson's opinion, better to quote him]", "a moment of brilliance"…
- Unreferenced sentences (particularly to end paragraphs): "but it was clear the title race would be decided on the final day, akin to 1995", "The achievement was all the more special for Ferguson, who lifted his fifth domestic championship in seven seasons", "helped the team to become the first to reach 60 points in the season." Similarly, "setting a precedent for things to come" is OR as it is not supported by the ref, but is again editorial voice.
- FA Cup and League Cup
- Similar problems, including a completely unreferenced first paragraph.
- Also, I'm not sure every claim is referenced: for example "Neither team was able to score even after extra time had been played, therefore the match was decided in a replay four days later" and "As in the previous four seasons United rested many of their first-team players in the League Cup, instead using the competition to provide first team experience to their younger players and reserves".
- General
- Would the transfers section not make more sense at the beginning of the article, to give some context to the start of the seasons?
- I'm not quite sure we get a sense of the season as a whole, rather than a series of short match reports. Some of the tension and interest could be conveyed a little more perhaps. Is there anything that could be used to give a little more narrative direction, such as a book about the season? (I'm sure something must exist!)
- It is probably even worth including details such as Giggs going shirtless for his celebration in the FA Cup.
- For a FA, I would expect some analysis of Man Utd's style of play throughout the season, and some comment on the effective/highly rated players. For example, there is nothing to point out that Yorke and Cole were highly regarded or had particularly effective seasons. Were the team attacking or defensively minded? Why were they so good?
- I would also expect more on pre-season expectations; how were the team expected to do in the season? What was their prior form and subsequent form in other seasons?
- I also think it needs more contemporary opinion in the legacy section. How did critics rate the team at the time? What was the immediate reaction in the press, rather than opinions written some time afterwards?
- I do not watch Peer reviews, so if you have any questions or comments, please contact my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)