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

Andover F.C.

I've listed this article for peer review because it's currently Start class and I would love to get at to at least GA status but I'm unsure of how to proceed.

Thanks,

B e t t i a^{t a l k}  16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I plan to give it the full look-over when I've got a bit more time, but the main thing that jumps out is the lack of in-line references, of which there's only one in the whole article. I realise that there are sources listed at the bottom, but a GA/FA is expected to have in-line references against all the key facts. See WP:CITE for more on this, and feel free to drop me a line at my talk page if you need any assistance ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • In progress
• The references was the main thing I noticed. A couple more things really jump out as per WP:MOS are linking to relevant pages, like competitions (particularly in the honours section), years in football, and the ground section; making sure years use endashes, e.g. 2007–08, and in results e.g. 1–0; and I'm not sure you need all the club officials, e.g. marketing manager, masseur, etc, etc - just the key ones.
  • Done
• Notable former players is also WP:POV. If you can change this section to either prose, or as a list of players who went on to play league football with maybe the header to see the relevant category.
  • Done (and to be expanded with further players)

Peanut4 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Automatic Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
  • Done
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
  • Done
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
  • Done
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
  • Done, but with 'years in English football' links instead of years
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
  • Done
• The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Done
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)