Wikipedia:Peer review/Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year/archive1

Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like feedback to see if there are any areas that I can improve on, or something I've missed, before I nominate it as a FL. It failed back in February due to a few referencing issues and it was back when I was still relatively new. I feel silly nominating it because it was nowhere near ready. I've done a lot of work on it in the last couple of weeks in my sandbox and have improved the referencing, along with the general layout and introduction. Any comments will be appreciated.

Thank you for your time. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 07:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• I feel this easily fails 3.b and as a stand-alone article the subject is simply not notable. Who was made POY could easily be indicated at a list of Argyle Players, it doesn't justify a fork with a little bit of intro text. I would probably oppose on FL on those grounds. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 07:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There are four lists of this type that are featured, with this one being the most recent.

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 07:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick drive-by comments - I count at least four places where you have used "the clubs" instead of "the club's". "Steve McCall matched that feet" also made me chuckle. And I'm not convinced of the relevance of some of the footnotes. Machin's, for example, refers to events that took place while he was playing for another club, so its relevance to PAFC is negligible. Others describe certain players' entire careers in glowing terms, but that doesn't really indicate why they won the POTY in a given season. If you can find any sources that indicate why the fans chose to honour player X in year Y, then obviously they should be included, but IMO things like "He returned to Home Park in 1990 for a two year stint as manager and was a member of the coaching team during Tony Pulis' spell as manager in the 2005–06 season" really aren't relevant to this list...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See this is what confuses me; I've used "club's" before and have seen other people remove the apostrophe. The comment about McCall could probably be worded more encyclopedically I agree. I really wanted to include Machin's footnote because it was a defining moment in the disciplinary system, but obviously it has no relevance to the award. After that, I guess I got a bit carried away with the footnotes but I did make sure I used references when describing players in glowing terms. Maybe replace them with appearances/goals from the season and if the club achieved something notable (ie. promotion/relegation)?

Thanks. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the bit about McCall is not that it could have been worded more encyclopedically, but rather the vaguely humorous spelling error. Feet = things on the end of your legs. Feat = a great achievement. And anyone who you've seen remove the apostrophe from a phrase like "the club's supporters" is completely wrong. Just as you wouldn't write "my grandmas cat", you don't write "the clubs supporters". You always add 's to indicate possession -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia used smilies then I would be using the embarrassed one now. It was getting rather late last night when I was working on the lead, so I clearly messed up there. I've corrected it now and added apostrophes. Still thinking how to go about altering the footnotes. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The footnotes are looking much better now so thanks for the suggestion. Including too much information is a habit of mine. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)