Wikipedia:Peer review/Liverpool F.C./archive6

Liverpool F.C.[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm going to try and get this article up to FA standard, obviously it is nowhere near that standard at the moment, although with some hard work I feel I can achieve my goal of finally getting this article to FA, after a number of years, any feedback is welcome

Thanks, NapHit (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr.Kennedy1: Hi, this is my first time doing this so obviously it will not be very good advice but i'll try my best. I watch alot of football so I should know a bit about how to improve it. Hopefully.

Infobox: The nickname should be italicized (excuse the spelling).

Lead: I think the first paragraph of the lead is not very suitable as it just lists how many cups and league titles they have, you should focus more on the foundation of the club in the first paragraph (WP:LEAD).

Colours and crest: You should put a caption in the picture for current kit.

Training ground: This section is far too short, it should be either expanded or merged with another section.

Overall: I think this is article isn't far from FA status because all it has is small problems and is full of good references and content.

I have requested PR on Phil Taylor. It would be great if you could review it (Wikipedia:Peer_review#Phil_Taylor). Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 23:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by jmorrison230582[edit]

Hello. I've already made some changes to the article where I can help from my own (limited) knowledge.

I think the lede should mention when Liverpool first participated in The Football League (Man Utd and Arsenal articles both do this) and perhaps first in European competition. Just now the lede is a bit recentist IMO because it only mentions the Premier League and Liverpool's current streak of participation in Europe. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing the above point, as it happens my Dad went to Liverpool's first European final, a defeat by Borussia Dortmund in the 1966 European Cup Winners' Cup Final at Hampden. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The kits section is out of date, particularly the bit talking about the third kit. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

I know its all factually accurate, but I'm not a fan of the way the "doubles and trebles" section is presented. I would prefer it if the entries with "double of such and such - as part of such, such and such treble" were removed, with perhaps a footnote explaining that a "double" of such and such was won as part of each treble. With the layout as it is this section (which is borderline original research) is taking up more space than the actual list of honours, which can't be right. Another concern with this is that it is unreferenced at present. That also applies to the basic list of honours. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ownership section is guilty of recentism, which the history section is admirably not. There is possibly too much detail about the present regime - perhaps a daughter article should be considered, similar to Arsenal - with at least some history of the previous ownerships of the club, particularly if they had some sort of significant influence (good or bad) on the club's direction. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to rectify this, but there is surprisingly little information about the history of the ownership of Liverpool, anyway I've had a bash at it, see what you think. NapHit (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine as far as I'm concerned. I have made one or two tweaks myself to pare down some of the recent stuff. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]