Talk:Stockport County F.C./GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Paul W (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As a supporter of another Cheshire football club (and a contributor to its Wikipedia article), this article covers the subject to a good level of consistent detail (though the history is swayed towards recent years), though I think there are issues - mainly of style. For example:

• overlinking - the text links to other Wikipedia articles too frequently. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking suggests linking the initial instance only, but the article repeats links to pages about managers (eg: Jim Gannon, Gary Ablett), other clubs, place names, etc
• occasional underlinking - conversely, links to the first mentions of some rival clubs and other articles are not included
• occasionally inappropriate use of figures for numbers under ten, eg: "Stockport County and Manchester City met 6 times between 1997–2002, with Stockport County winning 3 times"
• occasional use of ampersand instead of 'and', eg: " players & managers, both at home and away"
• the "Rivalries" section could usefully be broken up into shorter paragraphs
• there are still various "citation needed" notes

Paul W (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As someone who also supports a team near Stockport I'd also like to contribute some ideas. Other issues I find which need fixing are:

• entire sections and subsections unreferenced
• several dead links
• references need to be formatted in the same way, some have been left as bare links, most of them are just titles.
• the use of a completely unsourced "notable" players section, which is noted as "to be avoided" in the WikiProject Football MOS for football teams
• the football team MOS also advises against the bolding of players that have played in internationals
• unreferenced "Top 10 managers of the club's history" section which seems to be original research, or the link underneath no longer contains the info in the table
• not sure about the use of "for further details" linking to outside sources, here. Surely these should either be External links or references and the "further details" should actually be in the article. Usually that kind of thing is reserved for internal linking

Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears a few things have been addressed, but not everything. This should be failed if the remaining points aren't addressed in the next day or two. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Due to the remaining bare URLs and cite needed tags, I'm failing this. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)