Wikipedia:Peer review/England and Scotland football rivalry/archive1

England and Scotland football rivalry

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is potentially a good article. I think it is fairly stable (England and Scotland don't play each other that often) and there is plenty of material there. Any thoughts to take the article forward would be appreciated.

Thanks, Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso

Generally speaking this is looking pretty good. It'd stand a very good chance of passing GA as is.

Per WP:LEAD, everything mentioned in the lead section should also be included in the body of the article. This leads onto a second point - the one thing I'd say is missing from the article is a section about attitudes of supporters and the media.
Occasionally there is a run-on sentence, or a sentence implying a link which does not exist e.g. "The UEFA Euro 2000 qualifying play-off in 1999 is the most recent occasion upon which the two have played, and there have been no matches so far in the 21st century.", "This was the first time the match had taken place in Scotland for ten years, but England won the first game 2–0".
- Rewritten both areas. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SFA chief executive Gordon Smith has also raised the concern that the riots in Manchester on the day of the 2008 UEFA Cup Final may lead the FA to believe that there could be incidents of hooliganism connected to an England v Scotland fixture. - someone unfamiliar with last year's events wouldn't see the relevance of this without clicking on a link. Changing it to "riots by Rangers fans" might make it clearer.
- Added two links and a bit more text to clarify this. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Players and managers section - this doesn't mention what I'd regard as the most significant migration, the Scotch Professors who were highly influential in the early days of the English professional game.
- I have mentioned them en passant in the results section, but will add more detail further down. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
During this time, Rangers had a higher turnover than Manchester United and could therefore offer wages that could compare with even the biggest English clubs. - there another reason Rangers rather than, say, Celtic, signed English players in the 1980s... How much the issue merits mention I'm not sure, as anything other than a very brief mention would be undue weight. But as the recent flurry of articles about the 20th anniversary of the Mo Johnston signing shows, it was still a significant issue at the time.
- I don't think that Rangers' alleged policy of not signing Catholics is relevant to that period, or the movement of players between England and Scotland. Indeed, you could argue that Rangers signing English players was a small step towards them signing Catholics, given that those English players would probably have been Anglicans. I think the point of that passage really was that Rangers signing major players from England (due to their greater revenues) was a significant reversal of the historic trend of Scottish players moving to play in England, including some famous Rangers players (eg Jim Baxter). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Celtic also signed some English players at that time, but they were lower profile ("biscuit tin mentality" and all that), eg Paul Elliott. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably ignore that comment of mine. However, while the reference states that Rangers had a high relative turnover, it does not attribute the signing of English players to that. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of flags in the results list strikes me as unnecessary, and doesn't follow WP:MOSFLAG. The location column is completely redundant, since that is already covered by the venue column.
- Corrected. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also added a template showing the relative periods of dominance (Scotland before 1890, England generally since 1945), as there was concern expressed about this on the talk page. Also added a bit more description (hopefully not too much point of view) to introduce the results. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning the Anglo-Scottish Cup, or the issues surrounding the idea of a United Kingdom national football team?
- Added details re the other club competitions in the club level section. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that the Scotland have played England more times than any other opponent, and vice versa.
- Added some text and references in the records section. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article's quality scale rating as it seems to me that it meets all of the 6 B-Class criteria.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]