Wikipedia:Peer review/Midland Football Alliance/archive1
Midland Football Alliance[edit]
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having got West Midlands (Regional) League up to GA status, I've followed essentially the same model for this article about another league in the Midlands region. Let me know if there's any bits I need to "touch up" before I send this one to GAN...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- The template (while not all your responsibility!) could use some work - e.g. "Feeder To" should be "Feeder to", etc etc and the 2007-08 needs an en-dash.
- Need to specify this article on the fair use rationale for the league logo.
- I get a bag of whitespace after the first para of the History section, probably relating to the placement of the image - I'm using IE7 btw.
- "These leagues had existed since before the Second World War, having originally been formed as the Birmingham & District League and the Worcestershire Combination respectively,[1][2] but their catchment areas had gradually converged, and by the early 1990s the standard of play and geographical coverage of the two competitions were considered to be almost identical." huge sentence could do with a split and I dislike "almost identical", although that's personal, it's either identical or it's not, there aren't degrees of identicalness!
- I know you'll work on it at some point but it'd be good to fix those red links.
- "won the first league championship " remind the reader when this took place.
- "and gained promotion to the Southern League, and the Alliance's " split the sentence after Southern League.
- "One of the promoted clubs was " why not name them both and expand upon the Oadby.
- "due to further imbalance between the number of teams joining and leaving" seems an odd way of putting it!
- Consider making the table sortable.
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers for your comments TRM, I've actioned most of them. Regarding Oadby, the point of that sentence is to highlight that it was the first time a club from the LSL joined the MFA, I'm not sure mentioning that Cradley Town were promoted from the WMRL in the same year would really add anything to the sentence. As for the table, I'm not sure it's worth making it sortable, as the only column worth sorting by would be the "year joined" - I can't see anyone wanting to sort it alphabetically by stadium name, and the "2007-08 position" column wouldn't sort correctly anyway, as the three teams promoted from lower leagues would jump to the top, which would look bizarre and potentially confusing. Just my thoughts, though...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's fine - just something to consider. You can force the way the position column sorts using the {{sort}} template so those newly promoted clubs could be forced to sort last... But hey ho, not to worry. Hope the rest of my comments were useful. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Good thinking about the "sort force", I have now made the table sortable...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's fine - just something to consider. You can force the way the position column sorts using the {{sort}} template so those newly promoted clubs could be forced to sort last... But hey ho, not to worry. Hope the rest of my comments were useful. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers for your comments TRM, I've actioned most of them. Regarding Oadby, the point of that sentence is to highlight that it was the first time a club from the LSL joined the MFA, I'm not sure mentioning that Cradley Town were promoted from the WMRL in the same year would really add anything to the sentence. As for the table, I'm not sure it's worth making it sortable, as the only column worth sorting by would be the "year joined" - I can't see anyone wanting to sort it alphabetically by stadium name, and the "2007-08 position" column wouldn't sort correctly anyway, as the three teams promoted from lower leagues would jump to the top, which would look bizarre and potentially confusing. Just my thoughts, though...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)