Wikipedia:Peer review/Oxford United F.C./archive1

Oxford United edit

I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know how it could be improved. I have only recently started editing this article and would like it to eventually become a good article. I think there are too many small sections such as Notable Managers and would like the layout to be more in line with the highere quality team articles

Thanks,

Eddie6705 19:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty simple to stat with. Every dubious fact needs citation. Buc 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

review edit

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some pointers:

Looking at featured quality articles about other teams can help give ideas. Arsenal F.C. is possibly the pick of these, Norwich City F.C., Gillingham F.C. and York City F.C. are other examples for clubs of varying size and success.
As Buc mentions, it is important to cite sources for facts which could be challenged by a sceptical reader.
A Stadium section covering the Kassam Stadium and Manor Ground would be of benefit.
Consider converting the records to prose, see Arsenal_F.C.#Statistics_and_records for an example.
There is a bias towards recent events. I'd expect the League Cup win, time in the top division and earlier events to get a larger proportion of coverage.
Is the reason for Oxford wearing yellow known?
What makes the players in the list of notable players notable?
Further tips are available at User:Oldelpaso/On Football.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 11:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]