Wikipedia:Peer review/Hattrick/archive1

Hattrick

The Hattrick article has come a long way, and we finally have a complete version of the planned structure. Many of us who contribute to this article believe that it could be one of the first FAs of its kind, but we also realize that it's very premature to be talking about such things. Here are some talking points:

• Notability - always a problem with website articles. In my opinion there's no question of whether or not the article should exist, but there may be some sections within the article that need to be edited for notability. I'd like to hear a general idea of where the article stands in that area.
• Verifiability - do we need more citations? Are the current citations from reputable sources and cited correctly?
• Quality of prose - does the article need a full copy-edit, partial copy-edit, or only a few minor changes?
• Structure - does the article have a coherent structure that is easy to follow? Is the structure logical or should it be tweaked?
• NPOV - Does the article fail in neutrality in any areas? If so, how would the addition of a controversy section change the neutrality? Does the article read like an advertisement at all?
• Comprehensivity - Do any sections need to be expanded? Keep in mind that the article is already 34 kb.
• Quality of graphics - Are the images and tables provided logical and useful? Do any sections need additional images to improve the understanding of the subject?

Please add your thoughts below, and I will do my best to respond to your comments as soon as possible. I'm sure other contributors will assist as well. -DMurphy 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I dunno about being the "first of its kind", take a look at WP:FA#Sport and games (by the way, some of those FAs can probably be helpful in getting this one to featured status).
  • I agree that some of those FAs can be useful in getting this article to featured status, but I also know that there is a big difference between a console-based game and a browser-based game, and this article would be the first browser-based game, and as far as I can see first website, to get FA status. -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.

• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Fixed. Footnote Citations was renamed References. -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Fixed. -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Fixed for the most part, except for the title of the two real-life teams, which is officially FC Hattrick. -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
  • Fixed, except for subheadings in some paragraphs. Do those need to go too? -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • After scanning through the article, I found three clear lists. I converted two of them to prose; the only list that remains is the list of types of administrators, which is necessary to distinguish between the types. -DMurphy 21:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Fixed. Roughly five links were changed. -DMurphy 21:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks, AndyZ _t 23:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Specifically, Image:Hattrick.png and Image:Hattrick Screen.png need(s) proper fair use rationales.
  • Added for both of them. -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
  • Every user in Hattrick has a team of their own their->his/her (theres another occurrence in the paragraph
  • (one of four types of administrators within Hattrick) not quite a copyediting error, just noticed it while reading. I thought later in the article it said there were 5 types?
  • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.
    • Fixed both of those, but I agree that a spelling-grammar copyedit is needed. -DMurphy 04:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• AndyZ _t 23:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)