Wikipedia:Peer review/Glossary of association football terms/archive1

Glossary of association football terms

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This list is getting close to a point where we would be seriously considering an FLC. Admittedly there are still a few unsourced statements, but we are steadily reducing that number. Perhaps the biggest unresolved question is if or how we should be distinguishing between internal and external wikilinks (see here). Other areas worth a look include whether the lead could be improved upon, and whether some of the listed items are so obvious that we needn't bother, but feedback on any aspect of the list would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance, —WFC— 16:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Sorry for the delay. This is an annoyingly addictive list, on which one is tempted to spend a lot of time searching for some of the more arcane football terms - and usually finding them. My comments arise from surfing of this nature, and apart from those relating to the lead, are in no special order:-

Lead

Avoid repetition "...considerably earlier.[1] A considerable number..."
Last paragraph: I'm not convinced about either of the two terms you mention in this paragraph. Descriptions applied to specific match incidents, unless formally adopted into the terminology of the game, should surely not be listed as association football terms? Otherwise, why not list terms such as "Busby Babes", etc?

To an extent this ties in with the next point.

List

There is a certain inconsistency in your listing of some of the less formal terms. For instance, why have you listed "squeaky bum time" but not, say."early doors" or "fresh legs", both of which are heard quite often

The best way to answer the question is to point out that over a dozen significant contributors took the list from here to here in less than 72 hours. I agree that this is an inconsistency that needs to be dealt with, as does the question you raise about the likes of the Busby Babes. Wikipedia doesn't seem to like me this morning, but as soon as I can I'll point WP:FOOTY in this direction to hopefully achieve consensus on which way to go. —WFC— 07:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least eight citation tags in place, which need to be dealt with
There are other entries which do not have citations, e.g. "season"
Where you use forms such as "Safety : see survival" I think the second term needs to be specifically listed. In this case, "survival" is not listed (though "survive" is). I have not checked all these out, and there may be others.
You list the term "keepie uppie". I have only ever seen this printed as "keepy-uppy", with a hyphen (it is in several non-football dictionaries in that form)
On the question of hyphens, are you sure about "last-man"?
In the References section, you need to give publisher details for the Glossary pdf.
The link in ref 1 to "the original" is dead.

For verification purposes, isn't an archived copy of a dead link okay? —WFC— 07:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I could find other similar queries, but I really must tear myself away. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can be assumed that I agree with anything I haven't responded to. Connection permitting, I'll work through these one-by-one, as it makes sense to look for other instances of each type of problem while I'm at it. For a few relatively big things I've responded as appropriate. Thanks for your time Brian! —WFC— 07:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]