Wikipedia:Peer review/Rangers F.C./archive2

Rangers F.C. edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I Have listed this article for peer review as looking to get all Scottish Premier League clubs up to GA Standard and above.

Thanks, Warburton1368 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of small, 2-3 sentenced paragraphs that could be combined; there are {citation needed} tags in the article that needs to be addressed; "Nine in a row" is a very small subsection that might need to be expanded or combined with another subsection; "The Old Firm and sectarianism" section has a tag reading "This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies." this needs to be addressed, as well as the {citation needed} tags in that section; "Superleague Formula" section needs to be expanded as well as the {citation needed} tags in that section needed to be addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

I agree with all of the points above - PR is not for articles with major clean up banners (like the one in the sectarianism section) and these would be a quick fail at WP:GAN or WP:FAC
A model article is usefulf for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on British football teams that would be excellent models for this article.
Toolbox on this PR page has an external link checker which shows quite a few dead links - these would have to be fixed before GAN
Toolbox also finds one dab link that needs to be taken care of
The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the plc thing is only in the lead.
I think the lead needs to be expanded to be a true summary. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. As noted above, many of the sections are quite short and could be combined.
Articles need to be broad in coverage for GA and comprehensive for FAC - hard to see how this is either with no mention of the years between 1939 and 1971 in the history section.
On a related note, please read up on WP:RECENTISM and look at the coverage here. This is also a WP:WEIGHT issue.
Another quick fail reason at GAN or FAC would be the lack of references. For example sentences after a ref in a paragraph that do not themselves have a ref need at least one - example By 1876 Rangers had their first internationalist, with Moses McNeil representing Scotland in a match against Wales, and by 1877 Rangers had reached a Scottish Cup final. The first ever Old Firm match took place in 1888, the year of Celtic's establishment. Rangers lost 5–2 in a friendly to a team composed largely of "guest players" from Hibernian.
Or there are whole section like Nine in a row which have zero refs and need them. Also any citation needed tags.
Need more images
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]