Wikipedia:Peer review/APOEL F.C./archive1

APOEL F.C.

• 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 May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how other people feel about the general style of the article. The section that needs the most improvement, in my opinion, is the history section and I would appreciate any guidelines on how to make it more useful and easier to read. Any comments on any possible bias, missing information or references are also greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Anarxia (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

General comments

1. Introduction does not conform to Wikipedia:Lead section. It should summarise main points of the article
2. History section looks dreadful, Why do you need a separate subheading for every paragraph, it's like a tabloid newspaper?
3. If you are aiming for GA, you will need to fully reference the article with in-line citations
4. aim for at least three sentences per para if possible
5. stadium image should be on right. i wouldn't specify a thumb size since it overrides user preferences
6. some headings have incorrect capitalisation
7. why don't you use <ref name="namehere"> format, so you repeat the reference elsewhere if necessary formattted as <ref name="namehere"/>? Also {{el icon}} (in Greek) is an alternative to language =
8. I don't like the style for website publishers, for example at ref 1 I'd put the publisher as APOEL FC, and 15-17 I'd just put EUFA
9. External links, i wouldn't use (in English) on en-wiki

I might come back with more later. jimfbleak (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review and comments.

1. The introduction should be better now. I think all major points are summarised. I also put more emphasis on the football club rather than the club in general since it matches what the article is about.
2. The history section still needs a lot of love. I agree with your point about the subheadings. My intent was to avoid people adding content with no respect to the chronological order but in the end it made the section worse for little gain. I will try to reduce the number of subheadings. I tried it without any subheadings but it became very difficult to read.
3. I added a few more citations, but a lot more work is needed in that area.
4. Will do, after the history section is reorganised.
5. Stadium moved to the right and removed thumb size.
6. Fixed the capitalisation in all sections I could see.
7. Started using it in a few places. Thank you for the tip! I find el icon easier to type.
8. Changed for APOEL FC and UEFA. The other sites I left as is because it is easier to identify them.
9. Removed en for english links and moved language to the end for more consistent visual layout.

Once again thanks for the review. Feel free to point out anything else you might find. Anarxia (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1. With the language bits, there is some inconsistency. The Greek alphabet bit is sometimes italicised, sometimes not, the Roman transliteration is plain text, I think should be italicised, and the translation in quotes: e.g. Κύπρος, Kýpros, "Cyprus" I won't swear this is MoS, but I've not had it challenged at FA.
2. Ref placement - should immediately follow punctuation so it reads as eg Cyprus.^[12]

jimfbleak (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thanks. Anarxia (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)