Wikipedia:Peer review/Bury F.C./archive1

Bury F.C.[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm not entirely familiar with the site standards, especially manual of style and sourcing. I do have a personal stake in the article because I'm a long-time supporter of Bury Football Club, but I've tried to be as objective as possible and I'll appreciate you telling me if anything subjective is showing through.

I was advised to come here by a helpful member at the Teahouse because I don't feel ready to brave the good article review process yet and, given the backlog there, I don't want to waste anyone's time. The article was not in good shape when I decided to take it under my wing, as it were, and I've been trying to improve the layout and structure as well as making additions and corrections. I have taken note of how other editors work and have hopefully picked up some good habits. One of the constraints I've recognised is the lack of book sources and so nearly all citations are from online sources, usually of the news type which are more interested in making news rather than providing information.

Basically, I'd just like some guidance in how the site expects an article to be written and presented. All constructive comments are welcome and I look forward to reading your feedback.

Thanks very much and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi No Great Shaker, on first glance there a are a couple of things that really stand out:

There's a lot of information on this season, four paragraphs worth. Is that necessary? The main club article should be a summary of the club's history and avoid any WP:RECENTISM.
The list of managers here is very big. I would use a simpler design and keep the information in the notes column for a separate List of Bury F.C. managers page.
Current squad and coaching staff sections have no sources.
The honours section is a bit cluttered, definitely don't need to list things like "other promotions (0)" or runner-up (0)".
Ref 16 is a note if I'm not mistaken, keep these separate from any references in their own section, such as the one at Birmingham City F.C.

Just a few quick points to get you started. Kosack (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kosack. That is helpful and I agree with all your points. I'll certainly make a separate list of the managers and, yes, I think I have said more than necessary about this season. Thank you again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Placeholder comment to remind me to come back later with more) The entire records section is also unsourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made all of the changes suggested above and by others on the article's discussion page. One of the reviewers has elevated the class of the article from "start" to "B", so I'm now pondering if I should go to the good article review. I think I'll sleep on it for a while in case I find other material that should be included. For one thing, I want to find some useful book sources but they are rather thin on the ground. Thank you to everyone who has helped me. All very useful and much appreciated. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]