Wikipedia:Peer review/Al Ahed FC/archive1

Al Ahed FC

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

With the team having recently won the 2019 AFC Cup, I was thinking of nominating the article for GA. The article has been copyedited by GOCE, however I'm a bit unsure about the length of the article itself (as most GA football clubs have more prose). I'm open to any suggestions and comments.

Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A bit of a sea of blue going on in the opening sentence with Lebanese football club. The club link could definitely be dropped.

Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something of a mix of singular and plural when referring to the club. We have "They earned their first" but later "after it won the league".

Done Changed all singular to plural. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the club stopped its activities", why?

Because of the Israeli invasion. I changed "after the [...] invasion" to "due to the [...] invasion". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"to continue footballing", footballing doesn't work here. "To continue playing football..."

Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Ahed qualified for the Lebanese Premier League", the league is linked previously. Also, did the club win promotion to the league rather than qualified?

Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Ahed established themselves as a top club", considering the side only lasted a year in the Premier League, establishing itself as a top club seems a bit of a stretch and slightly POV.

Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 AFC Cup Final is linked twice in the same paragraph.

Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the club play in the stadium it owns?

As the ones they use have a larger capacity. I've fixed this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the honours section?

Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if players in the squad aren't notable, they shouldn't be red linked.

Potentially any of those players could play for the national team, and therefore have their article created. If you still prefer them to not be red linked I have no problem removing the links. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That could be said for any footballer. WP:REDLINK states that a page is linked to encourage creation when a subject is notable. If any of these players had an article created at this moment in time, they would likely fail notability guidelines. This is only a peer review so it's just advice that you're free to ignore really, but I would pull you up on this at a GA review. Kosack (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shirt sponsors section is unsourced.

Removed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid WP:ALLCAPS in ref 3.

Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RSSSF refs have authors available.

Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it's a little short. 6k of prose for a football club with around 40 years of history could be considered a little light to be a good overview of its history.

While I do agree with you, it is near impossible to find any information prior to the 2000s (and very difficult prior to the 2010s) mainly because of internet limitations, but especially because the club only began to become relevant since they won the league in 2007. Before that, they were just a mediocre team playing in the second division. Therefore, I have this dilemma: should I add more prose to the more recent history (2007 onwards), with the risk of falling into WP:RECENTISM, or should I leave it like this (more temporally balanced but with a short-ish prose?). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a difficult one and is the most likely reason a GA would fall down. The criteria requires that an article "addresses the main aspects of the topic" which you could maybe argue it does. I can't help you much here given my unfamiliarity with Lebanese football in general unfortunately. Kosack (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried looking as much as possible into the earlier history of the club (pre-2000s), and what I have found is much more than I expected to find. Obviously it's very easy to add more content to the more recent years, but that also has other problems I have stated above. Given these limitations, is it safe to say that it isn't physically possible for this article to become GA? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you've exhausted all options for sourcing then you could make the argument that the article is as comprehensive as it can be. Looking at other club GAs, Tow Law Town F.C. and Team Bath F.C. both made it with under 10k of prose, so it's certainly achieveable. Kosack (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few points on a quick run through to get you started. Kosack (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: Thanks for your comments! I have taken care of (most of) them and have commented on the rest. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A further comment, having the honours above the current squad is a little unusual and would go against the WP:Football MoS. Kosack (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done (the order was changed by the copy-editor; to be honest, most of the errors you have pointed out have been done by the copy-editor...) Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]