Wikipedia:Peer review/Progression of British football transfer fee record/archive1

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm not sure whether I fancy taking this all the way to FLC, but a PR can't hurt....... :-)

BTW I still think it needs a new title........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, brave choice, I'd stay well clear of these transfer things, far too much speculation for my liking. Still, some comments on your fine work...

I know it's linked but it's worthwhile trying to explain in the opening paragraph what a transfer fee actually is.
"Transfer fees are not generally formally disclosed by the clubs involved, and discrepancies can occur in figures quoted in the press, for example Trevor Francis, regarded as Britain's first £1m player, was officially transferred for £975,000, but the generally reported figure was £1.18m, which included VAT, fees to the Football League and Francis' signing fee.[1]" - mega sentence with 7 delineating commas - I'd look at splitting this into at least two sentences!
I would consider expanding VAT before using it...
"Fees are shown at the level most widely reported." but each entry has one reference so I'm not 100% convinced that you can make this assertion.
Is it worth linking the £ to GBP just to be sure what we're talking about?
"Continental clubs " - a little familiar (I think I've said this in another review one time...!) - mainland European clubs?
Make ref column unsortable.
Consider a graph of fees - it would show the "unprecedented level of increase" in the 70s you refer to. You may have to be clever and make the graph logarithmic otherwise the early fees will disappear in the dust.
Consider a "2008 GBP" column if you can find out how to "inflate" historic values. That way we'd get an idea of how much Common would be "worth" today? Something like this may be of use? Just a thought mind you...

Cheers for the comments, I think I've address them all except the graph and the comparative column, which I'll look at later. And you're right, there's a huge amount of speculation involved in this topic, which is the main reason why I'm wary of taking it to FLC, for fear it just gets bogged down in "hey, I'm sure Steve Daley cost £1.42m" type commnents....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW What's a logarithmic graph? ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it's like Image:LogLogPlot of Line.GIF - you get 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc on the y axis but can still have normal years on the x axis. that way you still get an appreciation for the rise but the early (much lower) values don't get lost... It may be a bridge too far though, since it might need serious explanation to those not at ease with logarithmic graphs! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The table appears right-aligned with an empty space on the left. It's maybe due to the picture. Could you fix this? Eklipse (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks OK to me, could it be a browser-specific issue......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, how bizarre, I just discovered that it looks OK only while I have the favourites pane open, if I close that the table jumps to the right. I'll fix it......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. Eklipse (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]