Wikipedia:Peer review/West Bromwich Albion F.C./archive1
- The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
- The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[1]
- Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
- Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
- Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
- Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[2]
- Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[3]
- There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [5]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 01:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- The whole section about Supporters seems crufty; who cares that Cat Deeley supports Albion, or that West Brom supporters have higher average IQs than Burnley fans (Incidently, I'm very suspicious about that figure; 138 is Mensa-smart. And the cite needs to be provided properly). Laïka 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Various points:
- The article's biggest weakness is that it contains few citations.
- The history section suffers from recentism, the current decade is covered in more detail than the entire century preceding it. The coverage of recent events should be reduced and that of Albion's trophy winning periods expanded.
- The supporters section is riddled with POV statements and should be rewritten in a neutral, more formal tone.
- The list of chairmen is crufty (not to mention incomplete) and should be removed.
- The list of managers should be tabulated and the commentary removed. It could also be moved to a separate article List of West Bromwich Albion F.C. managers.
- The Grounds section consists of three words. Presumably there were other grounds prior to 1900, these should be mentioned. The section should be expanded in a similar manner to equivalent sections on the current featured football club articles.
Hope this helps Oldelpaso 16:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I'm a bit late in this. Still, I think what Oldelpaso said makes sense and you should heed his comments. In addition:
- The introduction could do with a little condensing - reduce to three or four paragraphs.
- Level 3 headers (e.g. "The Premiership: dream or nightmare? 2002-4") should adopt a more formal and less POV tone.
- Needs some images (appropriately licensed, naturally).
- Fold the Trivia section into the main History one. If an item can't be added, drop it.
- Honours section should be at the bottom with other lists, and I would drop the minor competitions such as the Watney Cup.
- External links should be trimmed - see WP:EL for what should and should not be included.
Hope this helps. Cheers. Qwghlm 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)