Wikipedia:Peer review/Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records/archive1

Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hi there, as part of a continuing process of improving all Aston Villa F.C. related articles, I have put this up for peer review. I am currently at a loss to know exactly what to add to this list. What needs to be done to improve it, what do we want in a football "Records" list. The ultimate intention is to take this to WP:FLC after this review. Thanks, Woody (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Here you go...

• "Honours" in the lead doesn't need to be capitalised as far as I'm concerned. Done
• WP:HEAD for headings (Record Transfer Fees should be Record transfer fees). Done
• "Aston Villa is an ..." I know, this is an age-old argument but I would say "Aston Villa are..." - horses for courses though. However, a little later you have "Aston Villa since their creation..." which is what I would have said. You should be consistent whichever way you go... Done For me, it varies depending on the context. Changed it now.
• Do we want to start emphasisng "association football" in the first use of the word football nowadays? Done I think it sensible.
• "...which they did in..." nasty English. Done
• "...although most of these were won before the Second World War and the most recent was in 1996." reads a little clumsily to me. Done
• "Club records are also listed including record transfer fees." seems tagged on at the end as an after thought... Done It was, tried a rewrite, still a bit listy though.
• "...European and domestic league honours..." sounds like European league honours, presumably you mean cup honours for that, suggest reword. Done reworded sentence slightly.
• "Senior League Honour" - why the capitals? Done I don't know why
• "The youth team however won the FA Youth Cup in 2002.[5]" - is this article about the Youth Team? Done Point taken
• Move [6], [7] and [8] to other side of colon. While we're here, why are these cited individually while the European and Domestic cups have no citations? Not done They are footnotes, not references, colons fixed.
• Probably worth a footnote to explain how/why a cup can be shared. Done added one
• Not essential but suggest you write a stub at least for Jimmy Brown and Arthur Alfred Brown.
• Some records have citations, some don't, why? And move [9] so there's no space before it.
• Walker's caption has a hyphen instead of an en-dash. Done
• Be consistent - put full stops after each bullet'ed fact and put citations directly after the full stop. Done
• Use WP:DATE so no 18th June 2004, try 18 June, 2004. Done
• Do transfers have any citations available, particularly for the values? Doing...
• Club records section looks a little untidy, a mix of bolds, bullets, prose, etc.  Doing...I think I have footnoted the prose.
• (n.v.) in the table, what is this? Done I dunno?

That's all I have on the quick run-through I've given it... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work on the transfer fee references. The club records are all cited to the Ward book. Shall I make it clear that all records are referenced to that book unless explicitly stated? I thought that refnaming it upto "Z" wouldn't look good. (I can do it if neccessary.) Woody (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a note to the effect that all records are in the book would be a good idea. Only thing that springs to mind is are you sure they're all current? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Daemonic Kangaroo (talk · contribs)

• Your link under Reference 11, (Top international goalscorers of the year, 1882), doesn't appear to point to the right place.
  • Thanks, fixed it now. Woody (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• In the third paragraph of the lead, you say that Brown was the first international. As both Brown and Vaughton played in the same match, should you not say so?
• Also, the statement that "fewer than 19 of Villa's 64 England internationals played just once for the national team" ought to be referenced; e.g. to this link, although it's not right up to date.
• Likewise, do you have a reference for the statement "Aston Villa have provided more England internationals than any other club"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemonic Kangaroo (talk • contribs) 12:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Done, thankyou. Woody (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

• Why not use the table for goals and appearances that is used in List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records
• Any chance you could include a competition statistics section?
• There are loads of records you could include, so you might as well add any you find

NapHit (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I think the tables for goals and appearances might be useful, what do others think?
  • For me, the Aston Villa F.C. seasons is enough. I am not so sure about including a competition statistics section as it starts getting a bit crufty/almanacy.
  • There are loads, I could include record length of grass at Villa Park etc etc, it dosen't add that much context to the club. I am trying to limit it to relevant records that add some sort of context. I am always open to persuasion though, what do others think? Woody (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • From my point of view I'd (a) look at using the table structure for goals/appearances NapHit's suggesting, assuming you have the complete breakdown available, (b) I agree with Woody and (c) I agree with Woody - it mustn't deteriorate into a collection of total trivia... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Table structure implemented. Didn't have source (or, if I am honest, any reason) to implement a separate European column. Woody (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Auto review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

In general, I've no idea what should go into an article such as this. Not totally convinced there's a need for it, either, a bit almanac-y for my taste, though the inclusion of the Gillingham one in the featured topic bundle appears to have set a precedent. However, that's by the by. I apologise in advance for the length of this review. Because this article has little in the way of precedent, then there's inevitably a lot of pretty basic stuff that for players or seasons lists would have reached a style consensus long since.

• Lead. Should anything be bolded in the opening sentence? From reading WP:LEAD I wasn't sure either way. If it is bolded then AVFC shouldn't be linked from the bolded bit.Bolded and delinked
• Is Lerner's takeover relevant to this article?Nope, so removed
• 2nd para needs a bit of a rewrite, try putting info from first and third sentences together. Also four English clubs... as of when? Rearranged and added in an as of, but probably needs rewording.
• 3rd para. creation's a bit strong, even for Villa. Try foundation, or leave it out entirely. Perhaps put the details of what's included in the article up in the 1st para after the opening sentence; then combine history of club and existing 2nd para; then talk about England players or whatever in the 3rd (wikilink England).Done
• Honours. Reword opening sentence, suggest AV have won honours both domestically and in European cup competitions. Their last senior honour was ... Done
• Suggest the format as used in Club article MoS Achievements section, i.e with Winners on the same line as the years. Either way, Winners shouldn't be in the wikilinked bit. Done
• In 1982, you won the European Cup, not the "UEFA Champions League (formerly the European Cup)". Done
• There's a spurious * by the shared Charity Shield.
  • It is intended to mean that they didn't win it, like saying we half won it.
• Do Youth Cups belong here? No
• Player records. I'd be tempted to use colons rather than dashes after the bolded bits.Done
• Appearances table. Wouldn't brackets be enough for the sub apps? having italics as well makes it look a bit messy. Also, probably neater to put sourced to Ward and Griffin rather than Ward, Adam; Griffin, Jeremy,.
  • Not done Standard citation formating.
• Goalscorers table. I'd prefer the apps and goals to go in separate columns rather than brackets, but if you're keeping the brackets then in this case the italics do help to differentiate the separate items.
• Did Billy Walker really score 53 goals in 30 FA Cup apps?He was good, but not that good.
• Joe Bache was Joseph Bache in the apps table.Now consistent
• International. Not sure you need the club name on every line. Change whilst playing for Aston Villa to while an Aston Villa player, they don't mean the same. Would have colons instead of dashes after each bolded bit, and either "on" or a comma before dates, not dashes. Link countries to their football team, not the country.
  • Done everything but the "Aston Villa" part. It is needed to disqualify from other uses; first player in a World Cup," is incorrect, he was the first Villa player.
• World Cup participants. I'd pipe yyyy FIFA World Cup to just the year.Done
• Club records. Definitely use colons not dashes after the bolded bits. Also hyphens shouldn't be used as separators. Be consistent about linking club names, either link each club (once per section) or don't link any. Linked them all
• Firsts. Bit too much bolded Aston Villa :) Lol, is all that I can say.
• Aston Villa in Europe. Could link Europe to UEFA#Competitions. one of four, as of when? Done
• Winners rather than Champions of cup competitions. Prefer QF, SF to 1/4, 1/2 in rounds column. Result column needs to say what order the scores are in (home leg first, first leg first, Villa score first, home team score first?)Done

Notes

• Notes. (You'll have read all this before, I always say it.) If you use citation templates, fill them in properly. For instance, note #4, publisher isn't Everton Supporters Website, note #12, work isn't Jörn Mårtensson. Done fixed I think?
• Note #10, Div 3 isn't called English League one. Note #17 is in brackets for some reason. Done
• External links. Linking to general Soccerbase pages isn't helpful. Fansite needs proper description as per Notes.
  • I think the soccerbase links are good IMO, as they provide links to season summaries.
• Images. For me (Firefox, 1024x768 resolution), the images next to the apps and scorers tables squeeze the table so that the players' names wrap. 1896–97 caption should read First Division championship trophy. In general, the captions need a bit of tidying for punctuation, in particular, commas after names, e.g Charlie Aitken, Aston Villa's appearance record holder.
• The Billy Walker image bothers me a little. It claims to be {{PD-US}}, but the uploader has supplied no source information and given no reason for believing it to be pre-1923. The caption used in this article says in 1924–25 season; if so, then it isn't pre-1923 and therefore not free use, or at least not PD-US.
  • Kill, birds, stone: Have removed both images, I don't have a problem on my screen, but if you are, it is less hassle to remove them.

I'll now apologise again for the length of this review, and for undoubtedly mentioning stuff that you're already working on. I have tried at all times to maintain a neutral point of view and am convinced that I'd have been just as irritated by repeated mentions in bold print of the name of any other football club (honest, guv). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, your perspective is helpful, and accurate. The bolding was unneccessary and the emotive language was, well, emotive. I think I have dealt with your problems. Woody (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)