Talk:2009–10 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2009–10 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 22:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Placing it  On hold for now. It's good, but the flow isnt there, sometimes it feels like you're reading a match schedule.

Lead

• "ended in disastrous fashion" POV
• "a record of" remove to clarify
• hurdle -> stage
• "Gillingham was the beginning of an eight game losing streak" -> "..marked the beginning..."
• "They looked to have turned a corner at the end of September, winning four of their next seven matches, before another dip in form saw Sturrock relieved of first team duties." a tad bit colloquial.
• "They registered their biggest win of the season against Reading on Boxing Day but a lack of goals proved to be their downfall; they lost sixteen matches by a one goal margin." the injection of but doesn't read right to me.
• All in all the lede is reads like a stats summary, which isn't that interesting.

I've changed the wording in places and had a go at expanding it. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Championship

• Some text on pre-season would be nice, transfers etc. Who was replaced as captain etc.
• "Things were to get worse" POV
• "A Plymouth Argyle legend returned" legend is no-no
• The last section in the August-October summary is much better than the lead. Make the lead more personal like that.
• "The club began November in the same fashion they ended the previous month – with a win" the suspense!

List of words needing review:

• battling
• valuable
• negative vibe
• great

You would like to see a background section, like here?

My point was more on the language. The linked section is equally very choppy, but the last section in "August-October" reads much better. Sometime you feel like the sentences are appended as the seasons progresses, where they should be re-written as a summary, sometimes having what occurred later in time written earlier in the text. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 14:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed all the words above but one instance of "great", which is included in a direct quote from Paul Mariner. I did write the summary separately from the article when the season had finished and added it in when I felt it was acceptable. The efforts of Mattythewhite in his York City articles have been a great help to me. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If so then I'll see what I can do. I've changed the wording in places as suggested. The suspense bit I got from here, an article that includes "The campaign ended in disastrous fashion" in the lead after the subject finished second in the Premier League I might add (poor things; try losing 27 league matches in a season). If you can point out where the words "battling" and "great" are then I'll have a look at adding a citation. "Valuable" was used in the Argyle vs Ipswich match because we were both stuck at the bottom of the table without a win and "negative vibe" has this as an inline citation. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• • "ctrl+F" should highlight the words. On the other points, even if it is sourced would you include "got of to a groove start against some pretty chill opposition", it's just un-encyclopaedic. And the source of course is not the best.

No because that would be silly. I don't mind specific words used to describe a match or a performance if its cited with a reliable source, but I can understand other people might not. I've removed them. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

March–May

Refs

• Format a-ok, but only two different sources are used, the beeb and Argyle, why is that?

I like my sources to be reliable and you don't get much more reliable than the club itself and the BBC. I could've used more I guess, like Sky Sports but I've always preferred the BBC. Thanks for your feedback. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The club itself is only as reliable as wikipedia, i.e. statements on future plans etc. Using the club website to support prose such as "negative vibe" and other instances is unacceptable. Agree with bbc, but doesn't the Times, Guardian or someone else have something interesting to say about the club? They are IMO a step above the beeb. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 14:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point. I had a look at the Times, but its out of the question really since you have to pay to read articles now (!). I've added quite a few articles from the Guardian and the Independent, including a bit in the background about the change at boardroom level. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Under Championship there's an empty section called summary..? Regarding Times, I have free access from the library, might be worth a shot. Otherwise it looks good, I'll pass when summary is done. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 05:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to split the summary into three sections but if its not good having a blank section at the top then it might as well be removed, so the three other sections will then be visable on the table of contents. Anything I'd put in there would feel like an afterthought to me. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all good when they're at the same section-level, that will only confuse people. Suggest remove then Sandman888 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How does it look now? Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Better. Passed' it, congrats! Consider reviewing some 50+ GANs to help reduce backlog (or wait until the bloody wikicup is over) Sandman888 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2009–10 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090622170506/http://www.pafc.co.uk/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10364~33396,00.html to http://www.pafc.co.uk/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10364~33396,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922182730/http://www.pafc.co.uk:80/page/NewsDetail/0,,10364~1801046,00.html to http://www.pafc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10364~1801046,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)