Talk:Manchester City F.C. in international football

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Manchester City F.C. in European football/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 23:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Happy to give a go reviewing this.

General

• Any reason for no {{infobox European football}}?

Mostly because I didn't know it existed. Now added.

• Ensure all newspapers cited have a work parameter, not 'publisher'
• Ref 70 is Daily Telegraph, not Beeb
• Ref 79 published on guardian.co.uk, not The Guardian newspaper
• Is it 'Pitt-Brooke, Jack' or 'Jack Pitt-Brooke'? Likewise 'Murray, Scott' or 'Scott Murray'? I guess the ones in bold to be inline with the ref format.

Inter-ref consistency is one of my least favourite tasks, and I guess it shows. If only we had a MediaWiki EndNote or LaTeX. The name order thing appears to be due to mix of refs using first= and last=, and author=. All ref formatting stuff should hopefully now be done.

• Where are the refs for the tables under 'Statistics'?

Falastur2, do you have anything for this? They can all be obtained by simple arithmetic from the main list of results, in any case.

• Would be nice if the tables are compliant with MOS:DTT, unless you feel no reason to do so.

For an accessibility tutorial, I find that awfully hard to follow. Was it mainly the lack of titles you were referring to?

I've done some of the tables for you Oldelpaso, can take your cue from them for the by year one. NapHit (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I've done it, but may well have inadvertently missed something. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• The two tables under the heading 'Finals' are

Different levels, I assume you meant to say. I decided to remove the section entirely. They're listed in the previous section anyway, and its not like City have been in loads of European finals that would be hard to pick out of the list.

Ah yes, what I meant to say. Rude of me not to finish off that sentence.

• What's the logic behind the seasons having individual headings, as opposed to merging years?

It made sense while I was working on it, adding material season by season, but not so much now its complete. Retitled in a more conventional manner.

• Ref 26 needs page number. I notice the Guardian archive is temporarily shutdown, if you can retrieve it somehow that would be great.

Prose

• "Though Manchester City were reasonably successful" → moderately successful
• "Drawn at home first, City won the first leg 1–0, Brian Kidd scoring his first goal for the club" replace second comma with semicolon
• "In the late 1970s hooliganism was becoming a more prominent part of English football." place comma between '1970s' and 'hooliganism'
• "This was the first time the club had progressed in the UEFA Cup, at the fourth attempt." tad ambiguous. Perhaps something like "This was the first time the club had progressed past the first round of the UEFA Cup in four attempts"
• "City took a 2–0 lead and came close to becoming the first English team to win at the San Siro, but were denied by a Milan equaliser eight minutes from time" something iffy here. Perhaps "but conceded twice; the equaliser scored eight minutes from time" to state
• "By 2003, Manchester City were back in the Premier League" by 2002 even

Done, apart from semicolon-gate. For the last one, I was referring to the fact that City qualified for Europe in 2003. I've sidestepped it by putting "2002–03 season". Oldelpaso (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• "A playoff round took place before the four team group stage" that should be play-off given that is how it is stylised on the table.

Done.

Comment: Incredibly picky, I know, but sometimes I get antsy about stuff like this. re: Prose point #2, must disagree with the suggestion of a semicolon. Using one would turn the final part of the sentence into an incomplete structure - more akin to an image caption than a sentence. Perhaps just insert the word "with" before "Brian" (and no semicolons)?

Sorry, I know it's a massively inconsequential niggle, but I felt the need to make that point. I'll go away again now. Falastur2 ^Talk 17:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem -- the more comments, the merrier. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Factual error in cited source

Towards the end of the 1970s section, it says "City took a 2–0 lead and came close to becoming the first English team to win at the San Siro, but conceded twice; the equaliser scored eight minutes from time", sourced to Patrick Barclay's match report in the Guardian. The cited source does say City "were in sight of the first British club victory in San Siro", but it was wrong. Had City held on to their lead, they'd still have been 17 years too late: see 1960–61 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup#Semifinals. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I had no access to the Guardian archive, given they are doing maintenance work so assumed all sources were factually correct. I'm guessing something like "...came close to becoming the first English team to beat AC Milan at the San Siro" would suffice? Lemonade51 (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed to Milan. Good spot Struway! Oldelpaso (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)