Wikipedia:Peer review/Leicester City F.C./archive2

Leicester City F.C. edit

First peer review available at Wikipedia:Peer review/Leicester City F.C./archive1

Right I'm resubmitting this for a second review. I've done some work recently collecting references and starting a rivalries section. Also I shortern down the managers list and started a new article with the full list. The takeover section is a mess at the moment but as it is due to go through today (12/02/07) or tomorrow I will clean then, whilst it's all still up in the air I can't see much point. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad article. What it does need is more references.

Comments like: "is regarded as one of Leicester's worst managers", "many supporters refer to the ground as Filbert Way", "This change was unpopular" and "a strong feeling that the naming rights had been underpriced", to name a few, are uncited.
A few emotive and pov terms like "would break the clubs heart", "more playoff heartbreak" and "easily the best manager of recent years" don't really need to be there.
The links to external websites in the colours section should be converted into inline citations.
The records and statistics section needs citations.
Why are the listed managers significant? Some criteria should be established for this, such as all managers who won a trophy, or took charge of 200+ games, for instance.
The last decade of Leicester's history gets almost as much coverage as the previous 100 years. Perhaps more could be trimmed?
Can some of Leicester's older crests be uploaded and added to the page?

Hope that helps. SteveO 00:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as SteveO's comments, I'd like to highlight a few things:

I don't think you need to say what the club hasn't won in the lead. The lead also needs expanding a bit
"Under the new name the club enjoyed moderate success in the 1920s." Perhaps needs rephrasing. If they reached their highest ever placing then I'd say that was more than moderate, although losing that word might make the sentence a bit POV.
"City reached the FA Cup final for the first time in their history in 1949,[1]captained by Norman Plummer, losing 3-1 to Wolves." I suggest changing that to "City reached the FA Cup final for the first time in their history in 1949.[1] Captained by Norman Plummer, they lost 3-1 to Wolves."
"emerged into the first team" is a bit clunky. Can't think of a viable alternative right now.
"After the Premiership was founded in 1992 Leicester tried desperately to gain promotion to it." Doesn't everyone? I'd suggest merging that into the next sentence. "Were close to joining the newly formed Premiership when they reached the play-offs" or something better worded than that!
"First Division clubs for TV rights), the large wage bill, lower than expected fees for players transferred to other clubs and the £37 million cost of the new stadium. =[4]" Rogue =!
What colours did Leicester wear before 1910/between 1910-1940?
"have been used every season since the mid 1940s" Well, they haven't, seeing as the next sentence details a 1-season colour change.
"In 2004, the current kit also features white pinstripes, which have previously featured in kits from the 1980s." Lose the odd "in 2004".
"this led manager Martin O'Neill to say he used to "lead new signings out backwards" so they only saw the Carling Stand.[7]" Why the Carling stand? Surely the whole ground was undeveloped?
You need a full list of managers in a sub article.
A few pictures would be handy.

Hope that helps, HornetMike 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What SteveO or HornetMike said. Some additional thoughts of my own:

Intro could be little longer.
Recent history could be a little shorter.
What exactly caused Leicester Fosse to fold? "Financial difficulties" is a little vague.
Singular/plural should be used consistently.
Some sentences are little short, making the prose quite abrupt.
Years should be unwikified, and seasons used rather than years.
Citations needed for unpopularity of the new white kit, the fact the naming rights are underpriced, fans disregarding the Walkers Stadium official name.
"a new jazzed up version" is unencyclopaedic and vague
Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference, as the M69 derby reference does - and to be honest it's such an innocuous claim I don't think it needs referencing anyway.

This diff on the first two paras of the History section shows some of the changes in style I recommend - cutting out unnecessary repetition of certain terms, and tidying the prose (e.g. two sentences in a row starting with "Under") a little. Qwghlm 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been ill since I submitted this so I'll go through whats been said in the next week or so. Did notice one thing, someone said about an sub artcle of managers, I already did that, strange it wasn't spotted.Jimmmmmmmmm 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]