Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Bradford City A.F.C./archive2

History of Bradford City A.F.C. edit

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 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to push it towards FAC. It's recently had one peer review, and I've made some slight changes, but hoped to get some more input, particularly any suggestions about whether the lead is long enough or what changes may be appropriate to add.

Thanks, Peanut4 (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs) edit

Would a picture such as the FA Cup winning team not make for a better lead image than one of the main stand, which seems a bit, I dunno, bland for a lead image.......?
The first para uses "Bradford City" three times, which seems a bit forced - maybe replace one with "the club"?
"winning the Division Two league title" - just "winning the Division Two title" surely?
"The club played two seasons in the Premiership" - should use the correct official name for the competition, which is Premier League
"Several football clubs, including Bradford Park Avenue also....." - needs a comma after Avenue. Also, isn't the club's official name simply Bradford AFC, with "Park Avenue" simply something that is usually unofficially appended to differentiate them from your own club......?

I think you're right, but I'll 100% check on the exact name at this stage. Certainly the league club were generally just Bradford AFC. Peanut4 (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"By 1901, a team of the same name as Bradford City had played in the leagues within the city, playing for two seasons" - wording is very confusing, it makes it seem like the current BCFC already existed as well
Frank O'Rourke's name is spelt wrong
"assured with solitary strikes...." - "strikes", meaning "goals", seems a bit colloquial
"The first game in the final" - suggest rewording, this could be interpreted to mean the final was always slated to involve multiple matches
"New manager Colin Veitch missed out on an immediate promotion when he finished sixth" - Colin Veitch did not finish sixth, nor was he eligible for promotion, it was the team he managed that finished sixth
"Had it not being" - should be "had it not been"

Oops! Peanut4 (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"when the 1928–29 season starting" - needs rewording

I'll come back and look at the post-war years later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs) edit

"But only three months into the new campaign" - don't start a sentence with "but"
Terry Dolan doesn't seem to be wikilinked anywhere

He's linked near the end of the "Bantam progressivism" section. Peanut4 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the "Bantam progressivism (1981–1990)" section seems to have a little bit too much detail on a season (83-84) in which nothing of note really seems to have happened

I'm not sure. The club nearly went bust before the season, impacting on the players and results. The return of Bobby Campbell was a key moment in the history of the club, ensuring relegation was avoided and promotion could be earned the next season. I'm not sure what I can leave out, and not omit anything significant in the club's history. Is there anything specific you can suggest to leave out. Peanut4 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rodney Marsh said they would be relegated and promised to shave off his hair at a home game if they avoided relegation" - did he go through with this?

He did. I'll try my best to work this in. Peanut4 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"as well as signed" - should be "signing"
"but he won only seven games from 28" - he didn't win any of them, the team did

Hope all of the above helps!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for a detailed review. Most of it should be done, except for the couple of points above. Peanut4 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]