Wikipedia:Peer review/1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this should be a featured article one day. Manchester United are arguably the biggest football (soccer) club in the world and 1999 was perhaps their most successful season.
Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: The statistical information is most impressive, but the prose is more problematical. I have only gone through the lead and beginning of the first section in any real detail and have identified numerous prose issues.
- Lead
- "Over the course of the season, United lost only five times, including a one-off Charity Shield fixture, their League Cup quarter-final against eventual winners Tottenham Hotspur and a league fixture at home to Middlesbrough in December 1998." It is not immediately obvious why you include the Middlesbrough loss but not the other two league losses. Presumably it's because this was United's only home defeat; if so, make this clear: "...and their only home defeat, a league fixture against Middlesbrough..." etc.
- You don't need "soon" when you have the exact date the unbeaten run began.
- "The team's never-say-die attitude, instilled in previous seasons, was focal to their success as they often snatched victory from the jaws of defeat." This sentence is over-the-top POV unless you are quoting someone, in which case it should be attributed and cited. Likewise "crowning moment" and "dramatic" comeback.
- For the benefit of non-UK readers we need wikilinks on terms such as "knighthood" and "Freedom of the City"
- "Manchester United’s achievement was also matched off the field, officially becoming the world’s richest football club". The statement is an example of WP:PEACOCK, and the grammar is faulty.
- The word "however" in the final sentence is unjustified. And "such advances" doesn't sound right.
- BSkyB takeover
- General: I believe that the information relative to the abortive takeover should be much condensed. At present the section is presented in a muddled way, and the prose is strewn with errors. Here are a few examples:-
- The heading should be amended to "BSkyB attempted takeover" or similar wording
- "were subject to a proposed takeover" → "were the subject of a proposed takeover"
- spaces not required around mdashes. And there needs to be another dash after "their final offer"
- "deemed as too low" → "deemed too low"
- "who in turn budged for a higher price" - "in turn" is redundant. I never heard "budged" used in this way - wher does it come from? Maybe "pushed" or "pressed".
- "and as a matter of closing the deal" → "in an attempt to close the deal"
- When you say "United accepted", I think you mean "United's shareholders voted to accept the increased offer". The word "between" later in the sentence should be "among".
- Don't use contractions such as "It wasn't..."
- "On the pitch, United have amassed four league championships and two doubles since 1992..." "Amassed" is another peacock term. And surely the statement is incorrect as of now? Only 4 Premier league titles?
That is as far as I have gone. I did take a quick look through the later prose and it seems that the same sorts of problems are present there, too. There is non-neutral phrasing ("In typical United fashion...), sports journalese ("the hot topic", "scored a brace") etc. There are further contractions ("didn't", "wouldn't"); the team are called the "Red Devils" without any prior introduction of this term; there are unexplained phrases such as "brought down Solskjaer in the box" and "a European hangover". If the article is to aspire to featured standard, considerable more attention needs to be given to the prose. Having said that, the tables are very informative, and fans of the club, particularly those who remember this season, will love poring over the detail.
Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Appreciate your concise feedback as to where this article at present. I will be making adjustments in the coming week hopefully. The bigger problem will be rewording the match summaries, written in next to no time but yes, it's clear more work needs to be done before it can reach the 'Promised Land' of articles. —Lemonade51 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)