Wikipedia:Peer review/Burnley F.C. season 1920–21/archive1

Burnley F.C. season 1920–21

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… there currently aren't any featured articles about a football season and I think that with a bit of work this could be the first. I'd appreciate if someone could check through the prose to find any errors or omissions that were missed in the GA review. From my previous experiences at FAC, I think the main problem will be with the sources, as most of the article has been written from one book. (EDIT: just to clarify, the book is self-published and this is the issue. I have replaced some of the citations from the book with references to articles from The Times to try and rectify this in part) However, there isn't alternative literature containing a season-by-season history of Burnley F.C. so I wonder if anybody has ideas for what I can do about this. Thanks in advance for having a look at the article.

Cheers, Big Dom 08:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

There may be problem confirming the US PD status of the images, unless further information can be gathered:-

File:Tommy Boyle.JPG: Burnley Express publication date required

Have found some more information about the photo, still doubt it will be enough though. Big Dom 07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bert Freeman.jpg: What steps have been taken to establish initial publication date or authorship? Simply not knowing these details is not in itself enough to assume that they are unknown for copyright purposes.

I didn't upload this one so it's hard for me to find anything out about it. Big Dom 07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HaworthJ.jpg: No publication details given, so PD in the US is not established
File:Burnley F.C. 1920-21.jpg: You are probably on safe ground in assuming that the championship team photo was taken in 1921, but it would still be wise to have the Burnley Expree publication date.

Date added. Big Dom 07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eddie Mosscrop.jpg: The problem here is that this image, crudely coloured, cannot be the original that appeared in the Burnley Express before 1923. Without information on the provenance of the picture it is hard to see how this can be licensed as PD in the US.

This is a digital version of the photograph that I found (though I can't remember where now). Big Dom 07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are issues that have to faced if the article is to come to FAC. I will try to find time during the next few days to look at the prose and say some positive things. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look. ~~It seems like I may just have to give up on getting this to FA if all the images are so problematic.~~ Big Dom 07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have struck out some of my comment above. I've made an earnest effort to update some of the sourcing information and use better photos in the article. Big Dom 16:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one comment: the tables for results are inconsistent between the League and other matches. In the League section you have included the football symbol ( 6') to illustrate the goals scored, but not in the Other matches section. Personally, I'd rather they were not there at all - they are fine in a match summary, but look out of place here. Otherwise, great stuff. I'm starting to create season articles for Southampton, starting with 1894–95; if you have any comments, can you let me know. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look. The reason for this is that I originally just had the league results table, and the book I used gives the goal times for the league games. When I came to do the other matches, the goal times were not included, and I just forgot to make them consistent. I'll take your advice and remove all the {{goal}} templates. Once I've done that, I'll start to have a look at your articles. Cheers, Big Dom 17:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]