Wikipedia:Peer review/F.C. United of Manchester/archive2

F.C. United of Manchester

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because last year I took the time to get it promoted to GA and I am now wondering just how far away the article is from reaching FA status. I am willing to put in the time again to get it to FA class and hope that I can receive some pointers in the right direction via a peer review. My ultimate aim, as a fan of the club, would be to have the article as a main page FA, but I acknowledge that this is a long-term goal.

Thanks, Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Firstly, kudos for your work on this. The article is good but could do with much work if you plan to take this to WP:FAC. It is attainable however and it being your 'ultimate aim' makes it all the more achievable. I have only skimmed read through so below are my concerns:

• Ideally look at other football club articles which are FA and compare them with the article you are working on.
• The article could do with a thorough copy edit as it is perfectly fine for WP:GA but may struggle on prose if you take this to WP:FAC.
• Ref 22 is a deadlink. Consider replacing it.
  •  Done Found a report of the game on the Manchester Evening News website. Did find a cache of the old ref here but unsure as to whether I can use it as a reference
• Under formation, "the prime catalyst for F.C. United's formation was the 12 May 2005 hostile takeover of Manchester United by the American businessman Malcolm Glazer", reads a bit fragmented. Glazer's takeover was months in the making so would it be necessary to include the date? He never officially took over the club on May 12 as this article the following day hints, it was June 28. Perhaps you could exclude the date and in the following sentence clarify that he gained a controlling stake on May 12. You could also use a 'see also' template below the formation header for Glazer ownership of Manchester United, which means you do not need to wikilink it in the text.
• "After the name "F.C. United" was rejected by the Football Association", apply the wikilink to Football Association only or you could choose to capitalise 'The'.
  •  Done Capitalised the "T"
• The bullet points under Future aspirations could be removed and expanded into sentences. Most of the aspirations are outdated, have they met them? If not, perhaps you could state why.
• Criticism could do with some expansion. Surely there must be more opinions. Ferguson must have said more on the subject, likewise footballers, well-respected authors, journalists even. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the tips! I'll get to work on them and tick them off as I go. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)