Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Bradford City A.F.C./archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is already GA, I've done some more work on it, and now want to take it forwards for listing as an FAC.
Jameboy's (initial) comments: My first impression is that the article seems slightly unbalanced: the early and latter years are covered extensively, but the "middle years" (1919–1981) less so. Naturally there will be more to write about when something interesting happens, such as the early successes and the recent ups and downs, but I still think it could be evened out a little. I'll try to have a proper, thorough read through soon. --Jameboy (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Doncram comments: I am not familiar with the topic, and find the intro hard to read. It seems to be written by an insider, and seems not aimed to explain to those who do not know about the team. The first reason I say this is that the article name uses an abbreviation, A.F.C., which is not explained. I would think that A.F.C. should be spelt out in the name of the article, and then an abbreviation may be introduced, and then the abbreviation can be used throughout the article. But the abbreviation is not explained in the intro, and offhand I don't see it explained anywhere in the article. You can dismiss me if you want, because the fact that i don't know what A.F.C. means maybe i am not in the target group of readers for the article. However, a wikipedia article should be aimed for broad readership.
Also, there are grammar problems. I think that Bradford City A.F.C. must be a football club, singular, and "Bradford City" is used sometimes as a shortened version, which should be singular too. To address the agreement problems in just the first couple sentences, I would edit it as follows:
"Bradford City A.F.C.
areIS an English football club which wereTHAT WAS founded in Bradford in 1903 in a bid to introduce the sport to the rugby league-orientated county of West Yorkshire. Bradford City wereWAS elected to The Football League in 1903 before theyIT had played a game, playing theirAND THE TEAM PLAYED ITS first season in Division Two in place of Doncaster Rovers. Upon the club's formation, theyIT took over the Valley Parade stadium, which has been the club's permanent home ground since."
- I'll have a look at the lead, and will certainly expand the first use of A.F.C., but regarding the tenses, football clubs can use singular or plural verbs. See English plurals#Discretionary plurals. Peanut4 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
further comments from Jameboy: As this article is already a GA, I'm guessing that you are looking to push the article towards featured status. Therefore, although I don't have too much experience of the criteria for featured articles, I will try to be as critical as possible with my comments. Please feel free to disagree with or discuss any of the points raised. --Jameboy (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- "are an English football club which were founded" - "which" normally follows a comma when used mid-sentence, doesn't it?
- I don't think West Yorkshire was a county in 1903, it was the West Riding of Yorkshire
- "1903" is repeated in successive sentences - consider re-wording
- played/playing in same sentence - consider re-wording
- 1903 linked but 1908 not linked - why?
- "the club's" repeated in same sentence - consider re-wording
- "It would be...would return..." - may be simpler to use "It was...returned..." ?
- The fire - not sure if the full date is needed in the lead, I think the year would suffice. Detail may be found in the article text or further detail in the article on the fire itself. Also the date in the lead is 5 May, but in the article it is 11 May(?)
Early successes (1903–1919)
- Again, the link to West Yorkshire doesn't seem right here given that it wasn't a county until 1974.
- "Gainsborough Trinity, which was played in" - probably reads better without "which was".
- rather than saying that 1910-11 "would be even better", I think you should say simply that it was the most successful season in the club's history to date. I can't see anyone disputing this, given that you go on to point out that they achieved their highest ever league finish and won their only major honour during that season.
- "in the 1911" -> "in the 1911 final" (?)
- "to lose his live" -> "to lose their lives" (?)
- I'll read up on the county to properly check it. I'm not sure yet whether the source refers to the modern county equivalent, the West Riding, or the area covered by the West Riding FA. I presume it's not the second because that includes Sheffield. I've done the others. I think the last is correct as it is, because "one" is subject of the sentence. Peanut4 (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Inter-war years (1919–1946)
- The third sentence has "season"/"seasons" three times so could be re-worded
- "The club had only been able to start the season because of donations by fans" - may flow better with an additional lead-in/explanantion, e.g. "Such was the club's financial postition, they had only..."
- If known and if notable, you could mention who the player was that O'Rourke wasn't allowed to sign
- Topping the division is in itself not necessarily the closest a team can get to promotion without achieving it (depends what part of the season they do it) so it may be worth additionally mentioning where they finished in 1933-34
- I think the cite for 128 goals should be moved to the end of the sentence (after punctuation)
Lower divisions (1946–1981)
- "Milburn finished fifth in his first season" - Strictly speaking, it was Bradford City that finished fifth under his management (pedant that I am :-))
- "although that season they did shock Manchester United in their first ever League Cup tie." - it's not totally clear whether it is Bradford or Man Utd's first league cup tie. Furthermore, those not familiar with the subject may not realise why it was a shock. It may be better to simply mention that United were a Divison One side at the time - the upset would then speak for itself. Something to consider anyway.
- "United would not enter the competition again until six years later" - is that definitely due to losing to Bradford (as that's how it reads) or just co-incidence?
- "thanks to David Layne's 34 league goals" - should probably be "despite David Layne's 34 league goals", since you're emphasizing the club's shortcoming rather than their achievement
- "main stand enabling them..." - probably needs a comma after "stand"
- Stafford Heginbotham - what a brilliant name, fantastic
- "had their best FA Cup run since in more than 50 years" - needs a slight re-phrase for grammar I think
Bantam progressivism (1981–1990)
- "held onto their lead opening an 11-point cushion" - probably needs a comma after "lead"
- I suggest re-punctuating the return to Valley Parade sentence for clarity - something like: "They returned to Valley Parade—which had undergone a £2.6m redevelopment—on Boxing Day 1986 against Derby County."
Richmond era and administration (1990 onwards)
- "secured promotion to the top flight for the first time in 77 years and a 3–2 victory..." - should that be with a 3–2 victory?
- "as well as paid..." (Benito Carbone) - doesn't sound quite right but I'm not sure how best to rephrase it
- "six weeks of madness" should probably be in quote marks. may be worth elaborating slightly on what the six weeks of madness refers to
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Quick comment from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
I'd take a look at the licensing of that image of Grenville Hair. It's been tagged as GFDL despite the fact that it's been lifted straight from a website which does give any indication of GFDL release, plus I'd be amazed if the site even had the right to reproduce it themselves in the first place...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)