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

Arsenal F.C. edit

One of the most famous football (soccer) clubs in the UK, and WP doesn't have too many FACs (in fact, only one by my count) that relate to the sport. The article is fairly comprehensive, but then I've written a fair bit of it myself so I'm probably biased. All contributions welcome on its content, especially for how well it caters for the layman. IFK Göteborg is the only FAC related to a football club and may be useful in comparison. Qwghlm 17:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, although I rephrased "second most" as I didn't think it was good English. Some of the sentences are a little long-winded, and could do with being split up. A photo of the squad would be a great addition if the copyright status is ok. I think Fred Beardsley and Morris Bates should be de-wikified unless you think there's a chance of them having articles written about them. Also, the following statements could do with sources, preferably in footnotes:

at the expense of local rivals Tottenham Hotspur, by reportedly dubious means
it was revealed he had taken bribes for signing players
many Arsenal fans feel, however, that the blue shirts are bad luck

CTOAGN 21:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt a free/public domain photo of the squad exists. Have dewikified Beardsley and Bates as they were not players at Arsenal for a particularly long time and so probably dont deserve their own articles.

As for the statements - the first two have more detail about them in History of Arsenal F.C.. They are described in detail in Rebels for the Cause, a book which I have now added to the references; good webpages on them can be found at [1] and [2] respectively. Shall I provide footnotes for both of these?

As for the blue kit thing, it's more folklore than anything with sources (although it's mentioned on the odd website [3]), but some think it's more than coincidence that Arsenal have never won the league with a blue away kit; I've added this in brackets after the statement.

Qwghlm 09:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think footnotes for the first two would help, otherwise the sentences would look libellous to someone who wasn't familiar with the subject. I think what you've done for the kit thing is fine. I still don't like the use of "second most" and "third most" - can you rephrase them? CTOAGN 21:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have added footnotes, and attempted a rewording of the second/third most thing - I don't like repeating the word 'only' but it doesn't look right otherwise. Qwghlm 22:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I won't give any feedback on spelling and grammar, as that is not my cup of tea, but I do have a few suggestions:

I know there has been a discussion going on over the badge in article vs. badge in infobox. I would prefer to have the current badge present in the infobox. As User:Ed g2s seem to have strong opinions about this (btw, it was me who added the image-parameter in the infobox...), and as he would not want a vote as there were to few active users in the discussion, why not take the vote to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and decide it once and for all? If not the badge, a picture strongly related to Arsenal would be nice.
Consider moving the Top scorers and Players with the most appearances sections to a separate page named Statistics of Arsenal F.C. or similar, placing the top positions in a separate 2nd level header named Records, where the current Records subsection of Achievements also could be moved.
Adding a note on the current squad section when it was last updated.

No other suggestions for now. Will take a closer look tomorrow. :) -- Elisson • Talk 21:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, the badge thing. I'll consider it.
Statistics of Arsenal F.C. sounds a little awkward, although Arsenal F.C. statistics looks a bit better to me. What do others think? Has there been a precedent set?
Have updated squadlist with date last updated.

Qwghlm 09:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Have created a spin-off page Arsenal F.C. statistics for the statistics, and have moved the lists and tables there; a short summary is now in the main article. Qwghlm 14:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I believe all the issues raised above have been satisfactorily resolved. If there are any more points of discussion then please air them. I think the article is now getting up to FAC standard ~~(though it could do with a picture of Highbury as well)~~. Qwghlm 13:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've put the one vaguely decent picture of Highbury I've got to illustrate, although it could be a lot better. Qwghlm 14:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The final footnote seems to be an orphan. Maybe it should be deleted? CTOAGN 13:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've folded it into the main article - it's worthy of full inclusion. Qwghlm 14:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)