Wikipedia:Peer review/F.C. United of Manchester/archive1
Article about a semi-professional English football (soccer if you're American or pedantic :-D) club. We don't have many long articles about such clubs so it's been fairly unchartered territory and I've done things slightly differently from other football club articles. For example, information about semi-professional players is hard to come by and it would hard to write more than a stub for some of them, so I've merged the player info into the club article. I'd like to hear what people think of this - should it be in a separate article? a table?
Any suggestions about what else should be in the article or which bits could be longer/shorter would be welcome. I'd like to get this featured one day (might have to wait until the club's been around a bit longer to have a bit more history to put in) so pointing out anything you see that is keeping it below that standard would be welcome. Also some comments on the prose would be useful - we tend to not to emphasise that on WP for some reason. Too formal? Too informal? Thanks in advance, CTOAGN (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the players should go on a subpage, like Players on the FCUM or something along those lines. Otherwise, the fragments in the player section should be made into regular sentences. AndyZ t 17:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the article, while comparatively good for a football club article, is a little unwieldy. Some thoughts:
- It is not uncommon for overseas supporters to travel to the UK... - reference needed
- FC United's first season has been a resounding success. - too POV, needs rewording
- they had the season's second-highest average attendance in English non-league football - ref needed.
- It is perhaps worth stressing more the fact that AFC Wimbledon had been a previous successful example of a breakaway fans' club, and the (partial) inspiration they brought.
- ...it was claimed that a supporter had assaulted a steward... - who claimed it? Any arrests made? Was this later found to be true or untrue?
- An important milestone... This was due to... sounds awkward and needs rewording
- Player bios and details need to be much, much shorter. WP:BIO makes it clear that non-professional sportspersons are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia at length; some of those bios are as long enough to be good-sized stubs. I would leave bios to the FCUM official site and just list the players' names in standard template; if you really think it is necessary, then keep the descriptions but have them down to a sentence or two.
- Former players, unless they really have made a significant contribution to the club's history, should be left out altogether.
- While length is not a major issue right now, if the 2006-07, 2007-08, etc. seasons are going to be covered in similar detail to the 2005-06 season, it will become unreadable. The season history reads like a list of results strung together with a little extra prose. I would reduce coverage of the current season down to two, three paragraphs at best, in line with other articles. Qwghlm 22:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I don't agree with shortening the player bios, but I'll have a look at the other stuff. CTOAGN (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)