Wikipedia:Peer review/A.F.C. Sudbury/archive1

A.F.C. Sudbury

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has now reached a pretty decent standard and would appreciate some other views.

Thanks, Dancarney (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

Here's a few things I've picked up, hope it helps.

• In the first sentence it should be "AFC Sudbury is an English....."
• Similarly in the second sentence, the club should be treated as a singular noun
• Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the whole article, currently it doesn't mention anything apart from the club's location and current league(s)
• History section, first sentence - "AFC Sudbury was formed....."
• "Eastern Counties Premier Division" should probably be "Eastern Counties League Premier Division", as that's its actual name
• Is there a source for the specifics of why the club did not take promotion?
• Sentence starting "This new start" is a bit tangled and convoluted and could do with a re-write
• No reason for commas round Mark Morsley's name
• No need for a comma before Canvey Island
• "As well as consistently good league performances" - a bit POV, try and re-word
• Any sources for the first paragraph of the "ground" section?
• Stray full stop after reference 10
• Squad list should use the standard template seen on most other club's pages, and could also do with an "As of....." stamp to show how up to date it is
• League history section - "Eastern Counties Premier League" is not the name of the division, the correct name should be used
• "Source" section - couldn't this be turned into a specific inline citation and amalgamated with the references?

Other than that it looks excellent!

Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful comments, thanks! I think I've addressed everything with the exception of

• re-wording of "As well as consistently good league performances" - I see that it appears POV, but I'm struggling to think a way of changing it. Only once in the club's existence have they finished outside the top 3 in their league, when they finished 5th, which does seem to be "consistently good league performances". Would something like "consisently high league finishes" be better?
• Sourcing the reason for the club not taking promotion - just can't find a source for this, though I believe it is common-ish knowledge. Should I just state the the club chose not to seek promotion, though they were entitled? I think I can find a source for that. Dancarney (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Bettia (talk · contribs)

I'm new to this reviewing lark, but I've spotted some issues which could be addressed:

• When referring to seasons, use endashes (–) instead of hyphens (for example, instead of "beginning of the 2005-06 season", write "beginning of the 2005–06 season"). See WP:MOS#En_dashes.
• It would also be beneficial to wikilink any references to seasons to the relevant 'season in English football' article, just to add a bit more context (for example, "beginning of the 2005-06 season").
• Could you add some info on club records - biggest wins and losses, best FA Cup runs, etc?

Hope this helps!

Bettia ^(talk) 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions! I've changed to hyphens to endashes and linked the seasons in football, but the records bit is probably not possible. The club has not published these, so I'd have to do OR to find biggest wins and losses. The best FA Cup run is detailed in the History section, though perhaps it's not clear that this is the best that they've done in the competition? Dancarney (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)