Wikipedia:Peer review/German football champions/archive1

German football champions 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 November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi!

I've listed this article for peer review, because I like to submit it as a Feature List candidate again. The last time I did it failed and now I'd like to have some comments before submitting it again. The article has good substance, I think, and that was not really disputed when I nominated it the last time, but failed due to a lot of "minor" shortcomings you are probably not really familiar with, when submitting your first FLC. At least I obviously wasn't...

Thanks for your effort, OdinFK (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the East German info should be in separate tables to the main, West German stuff. That way you can get more information into both. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean in a seperate article or just seperate tables? Seperate article has the obvious disadvantage that the info about the German football champions is not all in one article any more. If it is in the same article but different tables the chronological order cannot not be maintained. Suggestions? OdinFK (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate table. I don't think they need to be in chronological order together - they're separate, and don't particularly relate to each other on a year-by-year basis. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would make a separate article for the East German champions. Additionally, you should do some work on the sorting of the tables. They´re a mess. For example, 1. FC Kaiserslautern stands before Werder Bremen. You should sort the club names after the city names: Bremen, Dortmund, München, Schalke and so on. --Hullu poro (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've thought about this for some time I agree with ArtVandelay13, the info about East German clubs should be in a seperate table, but not in a seperate article. This article is about the history of the German football champions and that is what those clubs were at their time, the champions of East German football. If you want to give a consistent picture of German football you have to include both parts, because the GDR is not some kind of distant ancestor-relative to the present day Germany. It is an integral part of German history. The same is true for the history of German football. A reason for not including those championships could be, that these championships were not organized by the German football association (DFB), but then this article is not called DFB champions, but German football champions. Even the DFB honours the fact, that those clubs were German football champions, by allowing the East German football champions to wear a star on their kit, when not playing in one of the Bundesligas. Just as the clubs winning championships prior to the Bundesliga are allowed to wear a star on their kit when not playing in the Bundesliga. OdinFK (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs) edit

Seeing as the tavle is sortable every mention of a club or player needs to be linked

Do they? I've seen it handled this way and that. I don't mean to question your judgment, just tell me where I find a guideline about that stuff, then I can look that up the next time I try to do a FL.

I would have a separate column for goals

For the top scorers you mean?

There is no need to include the full name of the club, just include the common name e.g. Bayern Munich instead of FC Bayern Munich

I thought about that, when finding out the actual names of the various GDR clubs as their names changed repeatedly. But it is problematic to use a common name. While being unnecessarily unprecise it is also ambigous for some clubs. Especially in the GDR several clubs have quite complicated heritage lines. To use the proper name of the time avoids some confusion I guess. In case of the Bundesliga, I sticked with the names of the corresponding Wikipedia articles. Why? In most cases there will have been some discussion whether for example the Bayer Leverkusen article should be named Bayer Leverkusen, Bayer 04 Leverkusen, or TSV Bayer 04 Leverkusen. I assume that the articles' names are the most common English names of the clubs as they should be. OdinFK (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now NapHit (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting top scorers edit

I'm just wondering what is to be done about seasons in which there were two top scorers. I'm not really happy with having them both in one field and then sorting by the one who is first alphebetically, but I don't know how to do that better either.

OdinFK (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think having them in one field is fine - sorting is not hugely important in a chronological list like this, so this is a limitation that we can accept. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting needed? edit

Could somebody please check whether this article needs copyediting. As a non-native speaker I'm okay with the text, but a native speaker would probably still find some text passages awkward.

Thanks, OdinFK (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate column for top scorer goals? edit

Picking up the suggestion from NapHit I wonder whether a seperate column for the goals of the top scorer should be included. I think that it is not really necessary as that is not the main focus of the article anyway. Someone more interested will probably go to Bundesliga top scorers, though that article is not that amazing yet. I have added Bundesliga top scorers to 'External links' anyway. So do we need that extra column?? OdinFK (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]