Wikipedia:Peer review/BBC Sports Personality of the Year Unsung Hero Award/archive1

BBC Sports Personality of the Year Unsung Hero Award

• 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 January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it does not meet the unwritten 10-item limit for FLC. However it needs a peer review to be eligible for inclusion in a BBC Sports Personality of the Year topic I am working on. Thanks in advance for any comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: There's not a lot to review here, but I have a few suggestions for improvement. I think more details about the winners would be good. They sound like an interesting lot, whereas the opening paragraph about the rules is probably necessary but not so interesting. If you decide to expand the article by including more about the people, perhaps some of that could go into the lead. Here are my other suggestions.

• "take part within their workplace facilities" - Suggestion: "take part within their places of work"  Done
• "and the three national regions—namely BBC Scotland, BBC Wales, and BBC Northern Ireland" - Suggestion: replace "–namely" with a comma.  Done
• "A judging panel then decides on the Unsung Hero winner" - Suggestion: "A judging panel then chooses the Unsung Hero winner... ".  Done
• "First presented in 2003, the inaugural winner... " - Was the inaugural winner first presented in 2003? If not, perhaps "The inaugural winner in 2003 was 63-year-old Knobby Woodcock... ".  Done
• "Of the six recipients to date, three were awarded" - Suggestion: "were chosen"  Done
• The big table looks fine except that you probably don't have to link BBC South and football multiple times in the same chart.
  • WP:LINK says that "Table entries are an exception to [only linking in the first instance]; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• The small tables probably don't need the single text line explaining them. For example, "By sport" already explains all, and you don't need to add "This table lists the total number of awards won by the sport the recipient contributed towards."
  • This is for consistency as it is part of a BBC Sports Personality of the Year topic. WP:FT? recommends "The structure of the articles is similar, with the same section titles and order where possible" (e.g. In this award these extra tables are no longer trivial). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope this brief review proves helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• A nominee must actively help others participate in sport at any level on a voluntary basis. - add "a" before sport  Done
• Why are the age of the inaugural/recent recipients mentioned if its not mentioned in the list itself? It seems out of place.
  • Context. "70-year-old Ben Geyser, for his work with boxing over the previous 40 years", the years of work seem irrelevent without his age. Whats your solution to this, reword this phrase to neglect any mention of age? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh okay, its fine then.--TRUCO 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• A more thorough history prose should be given. Yes its mentioned that 2003 was the inaugural awarding, but it should be mentioned in the first paragraph when it was created and who came up with the idea (if that can be found)
  • Don't think this information exists, but i'll have a closer look. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I have had a look, but have found nothing on either of these. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • If it can't be found, then its okay, but it just makes the article feel empty a bit.--TRUCO 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Table rationale: for over 40 years work with Bardwell FC, a community football team that she originally founded in 1964. - is the 40 years work an English variant? If not, it should be "of" work  Done
• I really don't see a reason for making the region and sport tables sortable since its a table of small capacity (less than 5 items and in descending order already)
  • I've put it in ever since Dabomb87 added it to the Coach FL here. I'm not bothered either way, but I can't see any harm in having it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • As RR said, no harm in it. Also, helps with the article-to-article consistency for the Featured topic. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh okay, for FT purposes then.--TRUCO 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Other than that, it looks fine.--TRUCO 21:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Not much to fix, since the other two reviewers were thorough:

• "national regions, namely BBC Scotland, BBC Wales"-->national regions: BBC Scotland, BBC Wales...  Done
• "from the fifteen regional" Numbers over ten should be written in numerals.
  • ✗ Not done, comparable quantity with "three national regions" and "twelve English Regions" Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, good catch. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• "for his unstinting work with grassroots football in Wales." Should be in quotes.  Done
• to football, with the other recipients contributing towards boxing, swimming, and the Special Olympics."-->to football; the other recipients contributed towards boxing, swimming, and the Special Olympics.  Done
• "region, with BBC London, BBC West Midlands and BBC Wales contributing the other three winners. "-->region, and the other three winners came from BBC London, BBC West Midlands and BBC Wales.  Done
• for "his unstinting work with grassroots football in Wales." Logical punctuation, the quotation mark should be inside the period.  Done
• I trust that the Rationales that aren't quoted are not copyvios. Nope

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Article looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)