Wikipedia:Peer review/Anfield/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anfield

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how I can improve this article with a view to taking it to FAC. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Finetooth comments: The article is interesting and generally clear but needs more work to have a chance at promotion. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should summarize the main text. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main section topics. The lead in this article does not mention "Other uses" or "Transport" and should be expanded to include them. See WP:LEAD.
    • Included various things but still needs transport update in main article Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lead should not include material not mentioned in the main text. This lead suggests that a disagreement occurred between the two American owners, but main text doesn't discuss this. The "Future" section should include mention that Hicks and Gillett are Americans and explain why they are disagreeing with one another (or the council). The lead says that a 2011 completion date is "doubtful," but the main text doesn't mention this. This idea seems too important to drop, and the "doubtful" comment needs to be sourced.
  • Acronyms like UEFA, which appears in the lead, should be spelled out on first reference and the acronym or abbreviation included in parentheses. After that, it's fine to use just the acronym. Thus UEFA the first time should be written out as Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). This will make the meaning clear to a general reader, who may not be a football fan. FA (Football Association Challenge Cup) is another example of this that I see in the lead.
  • For the general reader, it's also a good idea to explain or wikilink jargon. Non-fans will probably not know the meaning of "fixtures" in the first paragraph of the lead. A "thousand seats given for segregation" in the "Future" section will puzzle many readers unless it is briefly explained.
  • When wiki-linking, it's a good idea to link the first instance of a term. "All-seater" stadium is not linked, but "all-seater" layout is linked in the next sentence. I'd suggest going through the whole article one time just looking for this sort of thing to make sure the first instance of unusual or special terms is linked.
  • Full dates such as September 1, 1892, that appear in the middle of a sentence need a comma after the year. I fixed a few of these, but I recommend that you go through the article looking for these and fixing them.
  • To keep numbers and units such as "3,000 spectators" from being separated on computer monitors by line-wrap, a no-break code should be placed between them instead of a regular space. See WP:NBSP.
  • The phrase "111 yards (101 m) x 74 yards (68 m)" should use "by" instead of "x". I changed one of these in the infobox, but I see a couple of others.
  • I see several sentences in the article like this one: "Anfield has also hosted five FA Cup semi-finals, with the last being in 1929." The word "with" can't be used as this kind of grammatical connector. I usually deal with this connection problem by re-casting the sentence. In this case I might say, "The last of the five FA Cup semi-finals held at Anfield occurred in 1929."
  • I did some light copyediting as I went, but more remains to be done. You might find a copyeditor at WP:LoCE or WP:PRV.

I hope this helps. If you found this review useful, please consider reviewing a request, especially one with no feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. That is where I found your request. Finetooth (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso's comments: Factually, the article stands in good stead. The area with room for improvement is the prose. In some places imprecise phrasing leads to ambiguities. This is more prevalent in the lead than elsewhere.

  • Was the 1982 addition of seats to the Anfield Road end purely a case of bolting seats to a terrace, or did more sophisticated alterations occur (the former would certainly explain the lack of legroom when I sat there in the 90s)

*Liverpool's first League match is included, perhaps Everton's should be too.

    • Done. And found more information explaining rent increase too! Sillyfolkboy (talk)

*originally the home of Everton F.C. until 1892 "originally" and "until" conflict here.

*The record attendance of 61,905 was set... The phrasing here implies that the reader already knows about the record attendance. The same sentence could be read to mean that the ground was converted to all-seater in 1952.

*There are plans to replace Anfield with a new stadium in Stanley Park, which would hold 25,000 more spectators - 25,000 more than Anfield currently holds, or just 25,000? Try would exceed Anfield's current capacity by 25,000 or some other rephrasing.

*The Americans have had trouble financing the estimated £300 million needed for the Stanley Park development and the deadline to begin work within 60 days of the Americans' acquisition of the club has been missed and the site remains untouched. Would be better as two or three sentences. This section perhaps also overemphasises the nationality of the club's owners - The sentence could just as easily start "The owners have had trouble" or "Hicks and Gillett have had trouble".

    • That was my mistake in the first place. Obviously I'm obsessed with their nationality! Fixed it and reworded. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
  • Something which would inevitably come up at FAC is source reliability - Several fansites are used as sources. Can we be sure of their reliability? What about [1] or [2]? Oldelpaso (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

* Current ref 5 is lacking a publisher

* Current ref 26, 27, 28 have their publisher in the title link, can we put them outside the link to be consistent with the rest of the article?

Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

  • In the Transport section, you could mention the Soccerbus, which runs from Sandhills and Kirkdale stations (possibly others) and is integrated with Merseyrail for ticketing etc.
  • You need to make a greater effort to fill in the citation templates fully, rather than just picking the domain name out of the URL. For example, your "Hillsborough, liv.ac.uk" should be "Fact-sheet two: Hillsborough and the Taylor Report", produced by the Football Industry Group at Liverpool University. "liverpoolfc.tv" could be anything, unless you happen to know what it is; "publisher=Liverpool F.C." is informative and convincing. Etc, etc. It takes a bit longer but for featured content it needs doing accurately.
Haven't been through the article, those were just a couple of things I noticed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Anfield/archive2&oldid=217274103"