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

Burnley F.C.

I've listed this article for peer review, because I think the article has potential to become a featured article. There are still sources that need to be replaced (7, 141, 151 for example) and there are most certainly flaws in the article that I've missed. Therefore I'm hoping other users are willing to improve this article. All suggestions are welcome.

Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Club motto

In the lead, it says: "Burnley's emblem is based on the town's crest, with a Latin motto Pretiumque et Causa Laboris ("The Prize and the Cause of [Our] Labour")". The Latin motto is no longer on the team shirt. I know it used to be on the coat of arms on the wall outside the ground but I don't know if that's still there. I remember seeing it many years ago because my mate, who studied classics, translated it! If the motto is no longer used by the club in any format, I think the lead needs to be updated in line with the "Crest" sub-section. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The club indeed dropped the Latin motto a decade ago, and I think it's not even present on the town's coat of arms anymore. It's however still used as an "unofficial" motto by both. Maybe it's better to delete it from the lead since I believe it does not have that great value. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

After a little research, the history of the use of the Latin motto is even unclear to the club and the fans. The Latin motto is nowadays sometimes used by fans (although not official), but not by the town anymore since 1974. Odd. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think in that case it should be taken out of the lead, especially as the club badge image is displayed immediately next to it, but it should certainly be kept in the article. I just checked what we did for Bury F.C. (a GA) as our town motto is still (er, yes, well...) on the club badge and that's described in the narrative but not mentioned in the lead.

By the way, I've noticed that neither the Burnley nor Bury articles refer to the other club in terms of rivalry and I think there has always been a mutual respect between the two, probably because we're from smaller towns than the other Lancashire clubs. Certainly, a lot of Bury fans were pleased when you got back into the PL, the more so now you look like staying there. I can't quite remember when we last played each other but in the league it must have been around the turn of the century when we were both in League Two. We did meet in the League Cup since then, at Gigg, and you won. Lets hope we will meet again some sunny day after our phoenix has risen, ha! No Great Shaker (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the Latin motto from the lead, but it is of course still present in the "crest" section.

I agree that there's a mutual respect between both, for multiple reasons. Stan Ternent is also a popular figure at both clubs I believe. None of our fans were happy to see you go; there was much less sympathy with Bolton. We played each other for the last time in the league in March 2000 in our promotion season (2-2 at Turf Moor), and indeed in the LC and in friendlies a few years ago. Gigg Lane is always a fantastic away day, very characteristic ground and very friendly locals. It's just very sad to see the club folding, and of course I'm hoping you'll make a swift return. What division will the phoenix club play in next season, by the way? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing definite, but I'm "reliably" informed that we might get into the National League North (tier six), if we're lucky, or the Northern Premier League (tier seven), which I think is the more likely. We don't know yet if it will be a phoenix or if the existing club will restart. Oh, well. Yes, Stan the Man did us proud and is fondly remembered. Anyway, I'll do some more reviewing when time allows and I'll come back then. Take care. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That's great to hear. Hopefully the (original or phoenix) club will be run by sensible people as the area has enough footballing talent to bring Bury back to the Football League.

That's OK. Thanks for your comments. Take care. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Context: club is, team are

If the article is going to be nominated for FA status, I think a decision is going to be needed about the use of "Burnley" as a name in terms of its activity as a club and in terms of its activity as a team. The easy way is to default to the collective so that, unless you are talking about the club in purely club terms (as in the opening sentence), "Burnley" is always a plural entity because it means both club and team, the team being representative of the club.

There is an example in the lead where it says: "Burnley has been champions of England twice". This doesn't make sense. It should be either "Burnley have been champions of England twice" (plural; team) or "Burnley has been the champion of England twice" (singular; club). The latter is grammatically correct but defies common usage and I would strongly recommend that, throughout the article to prevent misunderstanding and secure context, singular expressions like "Burnley is", "Burnley was", "Burnley has", etc. are pluralised as "Burnley are", "Burnley were", "Burnley have", etc. Obviously, this only applies to those sentences in which the subject is or may be the team.

The contextual confusion is apparent in another way as when the club/team aspect interchanges. For example: "Before the club won a trophy again, Burnley was relegated to the Second Division for the first time in 1896–97. The team responded to this by winning the league the next season, losing only two of 30 matches along the way before gaining promotion through a play-off series between four clubs, then known as test matches". In the first sentence it is the club that is playing; in the second sentence it is the team that is playing. That is inconsistent and would confuse a reader who doesn't understand football. In addition, the sentence is far too wordy and the bit about winning a trophy again is irrelevant as you are referring to a different competition. I suggest: "Burnley were relegated to the Second Division for the first time in 1896–97. The team responded to this by winning the division next season, losing only two of 30 matches before gaining promotion through a play-off series between four clubs, then known as test matches". Burnley the team were relegated; they didn't win next season's league, only the division; and a phrase like "along the way" doesn't add anything.

I think this needs to be addressed throughout the article. If "Burnley" in one sentence, like the opener, means the club and only the club, then use the singular. For anything else in which there is a team element, or some other collective aspect, use the plural. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, just to illustrate this point, please see Manchester United F.C., a featured article, as that clearly differentiates between MUFC the club alone (it), MUFC the team only (they), and MUFC the club/team combined (they). No Great Shaker (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I went through the article and had a go, let me know what you think. Also, the 1896–97 season sentence is amended, along with a few minor errors I came across. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kosack

• Is the Lancashire Challenge Cup the same as the Lancashire Cup.

It is. The sources are not really clear about it but I think it was the name of the cup at the time. Should this name be kept, since a few sentences later it is simply called the Lancashire Cup? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Changed it to Lancashire Cup WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Does the Dr Dean Trophy and Hospital Cup need the quotations?

Removed it WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• "In 1884, Burnley had led a group of 35 other clubs", as this is in chronological order I'd remove "had" from this sentence as it suggests recalling a past incident.

Removed it WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• "That season did, however, present Burnley with its first professional honours", the however can be dropped here I'd say, it doesn't really add anything.

Removed it WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Link re-elected to Re-election (Football League).

Done WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Is it relevant to Burnley that Burt Freeman was an Ex-Evertonian?

It's not relevant to Burnley itself, but it's even clearly mentioned on Liverpool's official website when reviewing the match. One can view it as ironic, but it's indeed a bit journalistic. What do you suggest? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, changed it to centre-forward WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Burnley struggled in the second tier, narrowly avoiding a further relegation in 1931–32 by two points", I'm not seeing a ref for this?

Added a ref WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Lawton ref doesn't mention anything about the club's pre-war efforts either.

Could the "Football Club History Database" source, but we have played in the FA Cup semi-final in 1935, not in 1934. It's a tiny mistake on their side and doesn't matter too much, however, I don't know if reviewers will fall over it. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Added a ref WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 36 doesn't show Burnley played in any wartime leagues.

I have been searching for a suitable ref, but haven't found anything yet. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Added a ref WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• "could no longer compete financially with teams from bigger towns and cities", what part of the reference would support this statement? I get what you're saying but the reference doesn't seem to really state that as such.

Added a ref. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "signing wrong expensive players", were the players just expensive or wrong and expensive? If it's the former, I'd drop wrong, if it's the latter, I would consider elaborating on that more.

Most of his signings were a bit of both, but not all signings were wrong/flops. Some, like Kevin Reeves, were great, but Reeves was very unlucky to suffer a career-ending injury. Therefore I kept "expensive", but dropped "wrong". WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "still relied on a loss by Lincoln City in their last game", seems a bit of a clunky way of putting it perhaps. Maybe simply "relied on Lincoln City losing their..."?

Reworded the sentence WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the importance of the Lincoln defeat needs mentioning beforehand. Have made amendment to say survival required a Burnley win and Lincoln to lose. Paul W (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, it looks better now. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• "various designs and colours were used by Burnley", I'd add kit before designs here as generally a heading shouldn't be used as the identifier for the reader of what the section is about.

Done WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Might be worth considering a table for the shirt manufacturers and kit sponsors. See Arsenal F.C. or Liverpool F.C. as an example.

Thought about this. Cónsidering the fact most clubs have a new sponsor each season, and the clarity a table gives, I decided to indeed create a table. Let me know what you think. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• "depicting cotton, history, industry, royalty — refer to the history of the club", I'm not sure what history is really detailing in the list, especially when it's immediately mentioned again.

Only kept the first half of the sentence, deleted the rest WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Although as well as having a loyal, local fan base", the ref at the end of this sentence makes no mention of loyalty and it seems a bit POV. If you can't add a reference specifically mentioning it, I'd reword to something like "its local fan base".

Added a ref WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Drop the quote marks around The Football Factory and put it in italics as its the name of a TV show.

Done (also done in the media/culture section) WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• There a quite a few repeat links in the Rivalry section, Football League, First Division, FA Cup, Bolton Wanderers, Preston North End, Bradford City and Stockport County.

Done WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• As I noted in the GA review, you'll need to have a concrete answer regarding the reliability of Clarets-mad.co.uk. when taking this to FA.

The goal is to replace these refs, but haven't found a suitable replacement yet. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Replaced most, will read through the Simpson (2007) book to replace them all WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kosack The less reliable sources have all been replaced with better ones. However, I could not find a page number for ref 149 (Clayton, 2014) since I do not own that book. It is possible to replace it with a seperate ref for all seasons, but I cannot find one for Robbie Blake in 2004. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A few points I picked out on a run through. Kosack (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Kosack; I addressed them. Let me know what you think. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply here, I'll take another run through as soon as I can. Kosack (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's alright. Looking forward to your comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Further points The last paragraph of the lead is a little Burnley heavy towards the end (three uses in short succession). Perhaps swap one out for "the club" or "the team"?

• Does "Burnley Rovers Rugby Club" need to be bolded?
• "On 10 August, Burnley Football Club played their first-ever match as an association football club against local club Burnley Wanderers", three uses of club in a single sentence is a bit repetitive.
• "secession led to the professionalism being permitted", is the needed here? It reads a little oddly I find.
• "Burnley were relegated to the Second Division for the first time in 1896–97", could do with a source here. While ref 18 does show them in the Second Division, it's not explicit as to when they were relegated.
• "when only a loss in the last game of the season denied the club promotion", I'm not sure the ref really supports this as it doesn't indicate what the final fixture actually was.
• Ref 29 is a very large page range for two seasons, 69 pages? Is that correct?
• "Burnley finished fourth in the First Division in 1914–15, before English football was suspended during wartime", source?
• "Upon resumption of full-time football in 1919–20, Burnley finished second in the First Division to West Bromwich Albion", source?
• "with only fifth place in 1926–27 offering respite from a series of near-relegations", source doesn't cover this.
• "A tied club record 9–0 victory over New Brighton in the next round followed", the source doesn't say it is a record or that a penalty was missed for the next part.
• "used eighteen players", numbers over 10 should generally be spelt out.
• "squad only cost £13,000" > cost only...
• What record did it set?
• "semi-final to Tottenham, who became the first English club in the 20th century to win the double", is that relevant to Burnley?
• "finishing third in 1965–66", source?
• "reaching the semi-final of the League Cup in 1968–69", source?
• "only three more defeats since October" > after October
• Ref 83 doesn't cover the first half of the section it's placed after (the league and FA Cup info).

This is a further run through of the first half of the article. The sourcing could do with tightening up in places, there are several times where only half or parts of a sentence are supported by the sources provided. A source review at FAC is likely to pick up on this sort of thing so these need to be addressed before looking for promotion. I'm a little short of time right now to go through the rest, but you get the idea from these. Kosack (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this Kosack. I paid attention to the sourcing. If I did not miss anything, the sourcing should be alright now and it should cover all information. I have addressed your points as well. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Paul W

• In lead section: "Nicknamed "the Clarets" ... Burnley were one of the twelve founding members of the Football League in 1888–89." They weren't so named in 1888-89. Needs to be reworded.

Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• In history, should first mention of "Burnley Football Club" be in bold font?

Done WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Which hospital benefitted from the Hospital Cup? And was this the same hospital visited by Prince Albert Victor?

As you noted, it was the Victoria Hospital on both occasions. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Should Burnley's role in professionalising football be mentioned in the lead section?

That's a great idea, and the club's pioneering role in the 1950s can be added too. What do you think? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Made the change to the lead.Paul W (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Do you think the club's role in the 1950s should be mentioned as well? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe mention that Spurs won the double in 1961?

Done, and added a ref. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Much as I admired "elegant playmaker Martin Dobson", is this a POV (is there a source describing him as such)? [Personally, I also thought Leighton James was one of the side's key players then too].

Dropped "elegant". How could I forget Leighton James! I added him to the article. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Were the two 16 game non-winning streaks in the relegation season? (I reworded this slightly)

It was. Added a ref too. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• "wrong expensive players" - no clarification on why wrong? Expensive = adding to debt, but unclear why they were wrong.

Most of his signings were expensive and "wrong", but not all signings were flops. Some, like Kevin Reeves, were great, but Reeves was very unlucky to suffer a career-ending injury. Therefore I kept "expensive", but dropped "wrong". WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe "The Orient game" para should merge the final part-sentence of the preceding para? A bit of context might help too. How many games did Burnley win/lose to end in the relegation places?

Done. Also added Torquay as they were in the battle as well. Let me know what you think. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that Torquay game (against Crewe) where a player got bitten by a police dog. Still the subject of many a Crewe fans' reminiscences. Paul W (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that game haha. Certainly a game that went into football folklore. Netflix even has an episode about it. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• "... a new training centre, Barnfield Training Centre" - a bit repetitive/obvious?

Removed "a new training centre". WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Some points from my read of the history section. Will look at the rest of the article later. Paul W (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Paul W; I addressed them. Let me know what you think. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment by WA8MTWAYC

@No Great Shaker @Kosack @Paul W Thank you all for your time and effort to improve the page. I'll close this peer review now, and try to get the Burnley page promoted. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)