Wikipedia:Peer review/Petr Čech/archive1

Petr Čech

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 I want to improve any potential issues with this page before sending it to the GA process. Particularly looking for unsourced statements about records and awards. I've looked at it so many times I may be immune to seeing some of the issues.

Thanks, Cloudz 679 09:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick comments

Since the wikilinked article is titled Chelsea F.C., wouldn't it make sense to include the "F.C." in the first sentence instead of just saying "Chelsea"?
The sentence beginnings in the second paragraph are a little repetitive:
- He currently holds...
- He also holds...
- He also has...
- Čech also won...
The first paragraph in the section for Rennes is mostly about his international play, so it seems as though that would be a more appropriate section for that information.
"stuck at the bottom of the table" - Not sure I know what this phrase means.
"agreed a summer move" I think should be "agreed to a summer move"
"Čech’s transfer from Rennes was one of those about which the Stevens inquiry report in June 2007 expressed concerns" - Awkward syntax, consider rephrasing.
The rest of the club section is divided into seasons, which I've seen on a few football articles recently. I'm not sure it's the most appropriate way to go about things, however. Here's why:
- The rest of the article isn't structured into seasons, including the international play section.
- Because there are so many more sources available for information on recent seasons, it often leads to Recentism, which I think is the case here.
- Some sections only have two or three sentences.
- Articles should use summary style, not sports writing-like "recap style". Information about individual games is not nearly as important as the information about the season as a whole, but obviously there are going to be more articles out there about the former than the latter. These sections tend to get bogged down in scores (when Čech really only has control of one half of that score anyway) and anecdotes, which sports reporters thrive on, rather than a general summary of the season.
On a wide monitor, the two pictures of Čech on the left side (in 2010/11) cause some awkward text wrap issues. Additionally, they don't really offer anything unique or new about the player; he's just standing in both of them.
You'll want to define "U16" at some point. Same goes for "clean sheet". For anyone who might not know the term, it's used quite frequently.
"stunning saves" Sounds like a minor NPOV issue.
There are quite a few instances in the references where the name is spelled "Cech" instead of "Čech". I suppose if the original source gets it wrong, you might be required to put the "English" version of the name, but I'm not sure.

Overall, the sentences are well written, the style is mostly clear, and the article seems to cover the major subjects listed in the wikiproject's MOS for players. Just a bit of pruning for superfluous details and careful structuring should help quite a bit to make it a bit more readable. Runfellow (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those observations, I have addressed them all except the season breakdown for Chelsea, which I may try to tackle at a later date. If anyone else has any constructive feedback, I would like to read it. Thanks, Cloudz 679 06:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]