Wikipedia:Peer review/2011–12 FC Bayern Munich season/archive1

2011–12 FC Bayern Munich season

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

Need an accurate assesmant of what class level (ie B, C etc) this page is at.
Same editors tend to edit the page. So a fresh outlook on how this page could be written.
Check for grammer, punctuation etc.
Is there an appropriate structure?
How comprehensive is the article and what is missing?
Is the lead section good?
Is there a general critique that you would like to add to the peer review?

Thanks, Kingjeff (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Arsenikk ^(talk)

I would recommend 1997–98 Arsenal F.C. season (a good article) as a well-written template article.
The lead much be much longer, it should summarize achievements in all three tournaments, mention notable transfers in and out, top scorer, individual awards etc.
I do not intuitively understand what the section "Review and events" is about. I would instead recommend "background" or similar, and summarize very quickly the previous season (relevant mostly for European qualification) and any major changes during the summer, such as important transfers, managerial changes or even important staff changes.
I would recommend that the list of transfers be placed here, where the issue is discussed, rather than close to the bottom.
The rest of the article seems to be a series of tables. Although many of these are very good, there needs to be prose to explain the context.
Especially the Bundesliga section could do with a good deal of prose, and also a "snapshot" of the top classification.
The squad information takes up too much place and repeats too much information. The main table should be sortable and the nationality of players needs to be specified with words in addition to flags. A sortable table makes the goal scorers tables redundant. Personally (and this is my opinion) I find overviews of assists, penalties and bookings rather redundant, although mentioning who takes penalties in general and red cards overview might be okay. But generally anything that cannot be incorporated into the main players table I would leave out. The final "players" in the next section is utterly redundant.
Starting XI is problematic as it is an opinion, rather than a fact. The team would start with varying XIs throughout the season and even if all the players were available, this might vary somewhat. Further, which match should be chosen as "representative". Although the intentions of such an overview is highly appreciated, it ends up being non-encyclopaedic.
Reserve team mentioning seems fine.
Consider an "awards" section for any notable awards received by the club, its staff and players, beyond winning tournaments.

Hope these comments are helpful. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oldelpaso

My main comment about the article would have to be "Where is the prose?" It is almost all tables with little to no explanation. If assessing it this would lead me to call it Start class. With Bayern coming second in everything, Leverkusen-style, ending with a Champions League final in the club's own stadium, there is a significant story to be told. But this article does not tell it at the moment. It doesn't even mention the Champions League final beyond bare statistics.
A number of football season articles are listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation. A number of different styles are used, but any of them should be able to give good examples of structure.
The majority of sections of the article are unreferenced.
Having sections for bookings, assists and playing minutes seems excessive.
Agree with the above comment about the Starting XI section.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]