Wikipedia:Peer review/Carolina Panthers/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Carolina Panthers[edit]

(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this to FA status. I've noticed there are a great deal of soccer clubs that have attained that milestone, but no American football clubs have ever done so. Toa Nidhiki05 23:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Source review

Since I have nothing better to do right now, I'll review the article's references.

  1. The reference gives the publishing date as January 5, 2012, while the source states that it was published January 5, 2011. Also, this reference uses day-month-year format, while all others use month-day-year format. You need to change this one to match. Also, The News & Observer has the OCLC 27990457. I would consider adding this, using |oclc=.
  2. I would consider adding the effective date of the document, which is July 16, 2002.
  3. Same as 2, except the date for this one is January 1, 2000.
  4. I would consider adding |work=Team–History to the ref.
  5. This one needs to be changed to cite journal, not cite web. Use this: {{cite journal |last=Hoffer |first=Richard |date=October 28, 1991 |url= |title=The Franchise |journal=[[Sports Illustrated]] |location=New York |publisher=[[Time Inc.]] |pages=64-66, 70, 72-73 |volume=75 |issue=19 |issn=0038-822X |accessdate=April 28, 2013}}
  6. This needs to be changed to cite news instead of cite web. Use this: {{cite news |last=Swan |first=Gary |date=September 19, 1996 |url= |title=Carolina's Davis Has His Hands Full Again / Former 49ers corner renews duel with Rice |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |oclc=137344428 |accessdate=January 19, 2013}}
  7. Again, needs to be converted to cite news. The author is the Associated Press, and you've already linked to Sports Illustrated above, so remove the link.
  8. Needs to be cite news again. And the Chicago Tribune has ISSN 1085-6706.
  9. The link leads to the upcoming 2013 season's schedule, and I can't find the 1996 schedule, so I can't provide comments on this one, except to fix the link.

I'll try to continue this later, but I'm losing internet connection right now, so try to fix these six right now. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 02:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this took me so long. With my own review and a poorly planned out series of tests in school, I haven't had much time to work on this. Comments on next three sources above. More to come. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 03:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed those notes; I sympathize with your test plight. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Doing... I'll be adding some comments, mostly about style and phrasing, etc. in a bit. Runfellow (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Runfellow, Part 1
Lead and general
  • I don't know if "representing" is technically correct here. Although they are in the area, they don't represent the area in the same way as a college team would represent a university or a national team would represent a country.
  • Wikilink for the NFC South should probably include "division" as well, to make it more intuitive as to where it goes. Also, since "southern" isn't the proper name of the division, I don't think it should be capitalized.
  • Why are the LLCs in bold?
  • I don't think MOS:CURRENCY has anything specific on it, but it seems like there should be a "$" somewhere in "USD 1 billion".
  • Although WP:LEADCITE doesn't say so explicitly, I think it would be a good idea to include an inline citation for the value statement, since it is specific and it cites Forbes.
  • "The Panthers uniforms" – Include possessive apostrophe after "Panthers"?
  • "heated rivalries" seems redundant to me, since it seems there are very few "cooled rivalries".
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph says they had success in their first "several years", but I think most would agree that two is not "several".
  • "Despite their early success," – This is hard to explain, but "despite" is really more of a concurrent thing than a chronological thing. For example, "Despite having more touchdowns than interceptions, Player X's passer rating was still the worst in the nation." But "Despite winning four games in a row, the team lost it's fifth game" doesn't really work, because it's implying more of a connection than there really is.
  • "would not have another winning season" – "did not have another winning season"
  • "won the NFC" – To be clear, they won the NFC Championship Game. This would remove the wikilink in the next sentence to that article.
  • Delete "In their short history"
  • You'll want to have at least some summary of the "Culture" and "Ownership and administration" section somewhere in the lead. Generally speaking, anything meriting its own section in the article deserves some mention in the lead.
  • In many win–loss records and scores in the article, there are hyphens where there should be en dashes. I can fix this easily if you want.

I'll be back later to go over the history section. Runfellow (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done all of these now except the last; I'd be glad for you to fix those hyphens for me. Toa Nidhiki05 19:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)