Wikipedia:Peer review/West Bromwich Albion F.C./archive2

Previous peer review for this article can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/West Bromwich Albion F.C./archive1

West Bromwich Albion F.C. edit

I have pretty much re-written this article since the last peer review and believe I have addressed the vast majority of the points raised. Looking for GA as soon as possible, along with any advice and help to get it up to FA. Thanks. --Jameboy 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of choppy sentences with too many commas - I'll show you how to reduce commas by switching clauses.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) edit

So, strange situation because I've already said I'd review this for GA but in parallel we have a PR, so I'll leave my comments here and see what happens, bearing in mind I'll review with minimum GA and beyond in mind (thinking of FA in other words...)

Aye, first time up... I'll be better organised next time and have more idea what I'm aiming for!

Move citations to comply with WP:CITE, immediately to right of punctuation.

Done One obvious one changed, one questionable one adjusted. I assume this doesn't apply to infoboxes, tables and lists, which don't have punctuation.

Avoid prose within the parentheses. If it's worth being there, flow it.

Done I think the only parentheses remaining at the start of the lead and also in the Statistics section, where I found it hard to rephrase without them.

"This made Albion virtually an automatic choice..." - says who?

Done It was William McGregor. I have re-written the sentences(s) from the original source. Also the William McGregor article has more detail on this topic.

Be consistent with season descriptions, you have 1910–11 and then 1919–1920.

Done

Yuck, World War I - English should refer to this as First World War. Same with its successor.

Additional information needed These are the actual article titles, so are you saying this is an Americanism? Is "World War One" acceptable, i.e. dropping the roman numeral?

No, I'm completely objectionable to the American phraseology here. We should stick with Second World War and prevent the redirect to World War II by piping. Seems odd to me to make it sound like a Hollywood sequel.... The Rambling Man (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to be awkward, but given that several featured articles use the World War I/II format (Anne Frank, Blitzkrieg, Invasion of Poland (1939), British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, Battle of the Bulge to name just a few) I'm going to leave it alone for now. If there's a consensus elsewhere that says otherwise then I will change it. --Jameboy (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All those articles are incorrect then! British English supports "First World War" and "Second World War", this is a British English article so that's what I think.. But frankly, it's not that big a deal, just anomalous. Next up you should change the Colours section to Colors! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...this particular "Double"...." - needs further clarification - you mean winning the FA cup and being relegated? It's not clear.

Done FA Cup and promotion. I've clarified this and provided a separate cite (from 2007) that this is achievement is unique.

"...hailed as "The Team of the Century"..." - this is some claim. I'm sure the citation helps but you have to justify it in the text.

Done I've elaborated on this a little. If you can give an idea of what sort of thing you're looking for here, I can probably provide it.

"...there followed the club's longest ever continuous run in the top flight of English football, a total of 24 years." - cite it please.

Done I've cited the 24-year unbroken streak. Haven't been able to cite it being their longest run in the top flight so have taken it out. This is annoying because it is definitely correct (see the graph at the foot of the article), I just can't find it explicitly written anywhere. I can't find a way of citing it that wouldn't be OR. D'oh. Someone just posted on my talk page... seems I may have miscostrued OR slightly, so may be able to cite this after all.

En-dash - I saw a 1972-1973 instead of a 1972–73 there....

Done

"..of 1500–2000..." not keen, perhaps "between 1,500 and 2,000..."

Done

Heed WP:HEAD for headings - "Notable Fomer Players" -> "Notable former players"

Done

In that table, link the positions, consider reformatting so it looks pleasant, make it sortable.

Additional information needed Have linked the positions and made the table sortable. What do you mean by "looks pleasant"?

Well, little things like not letting the names go to two lines, consistent position naming, for two periods with the club separate with newline rather than a comma... There's scope for improving the appearance, that's what I meant, sorry it wasn't specific enough! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd look at making this and the manager table consistent, little things like column widths, {{sortname}} templates for the mangers, just to keep the article looking professional all the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information needed The names are all on one line and look fine, but then I have 1440x900 screen resolution. Any idea what is the lowest/highest resolution that a Wikipedia article should cater for? The name sorting template doesn't include a non-breaking space as far as I can tell, so I may need to widen the columns. --Jameboy (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the notable players table definitely has broken names on my screen, Safari, 12" iBook... Plus you can use the nowrap template outside the sortname template. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done See what you think.

Wowwwweeee, one manager for 1520 games. Incredible. (That's just an observation, no action required!)

Remark: He was definitely in charge for 46 years, but I haven't yet independently verified the stats, I've only used soccerbase. What I need to do quite soon is get the managers sub-article (list) to FL by verifying the stats against several books I have, then use the verified results in the main article. This is probably a barrier to FA for this article until I complete this task, not sure about GA though.

Ensure citations relating to multiple pages of books have consistent "pp", not just "p".

Done

That's it for now. Let me know if I can help more. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your excellent feedback. I've also added more images to the article and re-arranged some of the existing images. --Jameboy (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]