Wikipedia:Peer review/List of West Bromwich Albion F.C. records/archive1

List of West Bromwich Albion F.C. records

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review because I think it is well-referenced and has the potential to become a Featured List. I would appreciate any feedback that other editors could provide. Thanks, Jameboy (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say thanks for the comments so far, I will try to respond to these in the next week or so. --Jameboy (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Maxim

Overall, it's a fine list, one which I would have submitted straight to FLC. A few pointers though:

• Can you do something with the awkward first sentence; it isn't engaging. Perhaps specify the more general location within England, so maybe change to something like ... located in West Bromwhich, West Midlands.
• Add a bit more info about the team in general (a few more sentences/facts won't hurt, f.ex. in what tier they play.) Something about the team's more recent history would add some context.

There isn't much more I could mention, as the rest is stats. If you expand the lead a bit, I could probably take a quick look at the quality of the new prose. Hope this helps, Maxim_(talk) 03:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Looks pretty comprehensive. A few suggestions/queries:-

• Prose: the semicolon in the final lead sentence should be replaced by a full stop.
• "Most substitute appearances" doesn't seem a very worthwhile record for inclusion.
• Most appearances table
  • Any reason why only the top 10 are recorded? Obviously there has to be some cutoff, but 10 seems a bit limited.
  • Are the substitute appearances in parentheses in addition to, or included in, the main apearance figures?
• Goalscorers: A bit of a medley of "mosts" and "firsts" I wonder if the "First league goal" is really worth listing as a record? Also, "Most goals in a season" does not distinguish between league and other competitions.
• Top scorers table: W.G. Richardson is credited with a goal in the "other matches" column, yet apparently he made 0 appearances in this category!
• International caps: the first entry has nothing to do with international appearances. I doubt, anyway, whether "North v South" matches in 1884 were that big a deal
• Transfers
  • Any reason for limiting fees paid and received to top 5?
  • Any reason for starting the progression table in 1921?
  • In the progression table, why has Kilbane got two fees against his name, and no citation in the Refs column?
• Points: perhaps a note could add that in all cases one point was awarded for a draw.
• Attendances: The "Away and neutral" attendance details seem somewhat limited. What, for example, were the highest away attendances for league and cup games? For the details you have, grounds where these attendances occurred should be mentioned.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Struway2

• Honours section is unreferenced.
• Whoever first invented the layout of the Most appearances and Top goalscorers tables should be shot, but that's not the fault of this article. Suggest putting any footnotes which apply to a table, such as Note D in the Other column, immediately below the table to which they apply, rather than in the general notes section. Save the reader a bit of effort.
• Flag usage is contrary to MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names.
• Various unreferenced: Goalscorers/First league goal, International caps/World Cup Finals ones, Progression of record/Kilbane, Managerial records section, Matches/Wins/English top division record, Matches/Defeats/Record Prem.
• Progression of record: sorting of fee column doesn't work on Kilbane fee.
• Decide whether you're calling it The Football League (as in Goalscorers) or Football League (as in Matches/Firsts). I prefer without the unnaturally capitalised The, but that's personal prejudice.
• Matches/Firsts: link friendly match to whatever that article's called at the moment.
• Matches/Firsts/First floodlit: Football League First Division should be just First Division.
• Should Bologna F.C. 1909 and FC Dinamo Bucureşti be displayed as something simpler, as English clubs are?
• I'd be tempted to combine notes ABC, but either way, change "now known as xxx" to "renamed xxx in 2004" or whenever it was.
• There must be a few of the records you could add a bit of light prose to, to liven up the endless tables.
• Didn't notice a date at which the records are correct.

hope this helps, and sorry it's taken me so long to notice it was up for PR. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)