Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Ipswich Town F.C./archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

History of Ipswich Town F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been expanded over the past couple of weeks from 20K with two citations to 44K with 85 citations, primarily by me and User:Dweller. I think it's pretty comprehensive in terms of the history of the club but, no doubt, as I've become too close to it, the prose needs work and there may be clear errors that I'm missing since I can no longer see the wood for the trees! My ultimate goal is to take this article to WP:FAC but won't do so until this PR runs a good and thorough course. As always, I humbly bare my soul open to the scrutiny of the community and thank you in advance for the time and effort you may spend providing me with feedback. I will endeavour to handle all comments, criticism etc as openly and quickly as possible. Cheers everyone... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit

Another excellent article from TRM, all the points I've picked up are pretty minor.....

  • Southern League links to a dab page in the lead
  • Also in the lead, might "the season after winning promotion" read better as "one season after winning promotion"? I can't decide, personally.....
  • "The club was founded" - when was this? I realise it was stated in the lead but I think it should be re-stated here in the "body"
  • Date of first match isn't Wikilinked
  • "Followed the week after with...." - should be "followed by", I think
  • Also, where the club's original and current names are shown in bold, I think either both should use "FC" or both should use "Football Club", rather than one of each as it is at the moment
  • Sentence starting "Ipswich Town's results" is not grammatically correct, as the subject of the second clause is the club, not their results
  • Following sentence is missing an "of"
  • Wikilink Corinthians F.C. (I presume this is the club that's meant)
  • I think the sentence about the proposed professional breakaway should state the timeframe of this, especially as it's the first sentence of a section
  • The bit about Garneys scoring four in a game made me realise that I'd read an earlier sentence as stating that Knights scored his three hat tricks all in that one 15-goal game. With hindsight I realise this was a very silly way to interpret that sentence, but maybe a slight rewrite might reduce the potential for confusion on the part of idiots :-)
  • Maybe Wikilink "First Division" in the bit about losing to Preston, as it's the first time it's been mentioned within the body of the article
  • In the 1969-82 section, this bit seems to have a word or two missing: "However the season was not without for the club as it secured a 1–0 victory over Arsenal in the FA Cup Final at Wembley Stadium"
  • First sentence of the 95 onwards section has "Division playoff", presumably this should say "Division One playoff"? Also, shouldn't "playoff" have a hyphen?
  • Sentence starting "failure to win" needs tidying up as the subject jumps about a bit :-)

Once these are sorted I'd be more than happy to support this to FA! ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as ever Chris. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kevin McE

edit

You do realise that by going for a PR during half term week you subject yourself to the scrutiny of professional pedants? :@)

  • until 1936 when the club turned professional and played in the Southern League. Was the decision to go professional a result of promotion: was promotion only possible if they went pro? If there is no causal linkage between the two, it looks odd to have them both.
  • The fact is that ITFC "contributed" 2 England managers: the significance of such contribution is, I would suggest, for readers to infer, or not.
  • Was the precursor Ipswich Association FC, or Ipswich AFC? Would fans have said that they followed Ipswich Association? Is this like refering to Leeds United as Leeds United Association?
  • under the presidency of the Ipswich Member of Parliament, Thomas Cobbold.: town already linked, Member of Parliament in full makes it look, IMHO, almost fawning: would local MP Thomas Cobbold suffice?
  • Ipswich Association played their first home game at Broom Hill, a ground in the town, on 2 November 1878, a 6–1 victory over Stoke Wanderers, followed by a 2–0 victory over Harwich in the club's first away match. Too many minor clauses! Maybe Ipswich Association's first match was a 6–1 home victory over Stoke Wanderers at the Broom Hill ground on 2 November 1878. Second match less noteworthy than first, can be inferred that the home ground is local.
  • 2nd XI, and later representative XI: the latin numeral is arguably archaic, or for the linguistic community of football fans: I'd suggest "team".
  • Record win: should this be described as Ipswich's acheivement, or Ipswich Association's? Given that Hat trick#football defines a hat-trick as "when a player scores three goals in a single game" then maybe John Knights' feat should be a treble (triple?) hat-trick, or even (noting the linguistic exclusivity element) nine goals?
  • The silverware link that you have specifically refers to the League championship, FA Cup and European trophies, but not, amazingly, the Suffolk Challenge cup: maybe rephrase, or at least lose the link.
  • Entering a competition is not a gradual process: they either began competing in, or they first entered (although either would benefit from a specific year).
  • "An Ipswich representative XI": this was not an Ipswich Town team then? Should it be in the Portman Road article or here?
  • Despite invitations to join both the Southern League and the Norfolk and Suffolk League during the 1890s, it was not until the 1899–1900 season that Ipswich finally accepted one of the offers. The club finished fourth in their inaugural season in the Norfolk and Suffolk League. Nobody invited them to join both leagues. But were the invitations in 1888, or 1881? It makes a big difference to the element of "finally". We have already established that the club's inaugural season was in 1878-79. Having received invitations to join from both the Southern League and the Norfolk and Suffolk League, Ipswich joined the latter in the 1899–1900 season, finishing fourth in their first league season.
  • Indifferent seasons are probably not worth commenting on: In 1907, Ipswich Town became a founder member of the SAL.
  • Most readers will be aware that 1921-22 is the season after 1920-21.
  • Captain John Murray Cobbold: is there a reason for giving such a florid rendition of this name? John Cobbold, club president (not capitalised) and grandson (or whatever relation he was, if known) of the first president (if the club was dynastic in these early years, that might be worth a mention).
  • A meeting is not a place: "at which", not "where".
  • Tunbidge Wells Rangers can be linked.
  • Avoid using "after" twice in rapid succession: "following the death..."
  • How was Mr Duncan generally known? There is contradiction between this article and the title of his article. "Around 3 months" is not good encyclopaedic language: if the length of the inter-regnum is unknown, can we not simply say that Duncan followed O'Brien?
  • That graphic of the league positions, at the scale it is seen on this page, is misleading: it says that it shows positions from 1939, and shows dips immediately at the start: it looks as though league position was volatile in the years immediately following 1939.
    • Okay, perhaps you could clarify this - are you concerned about the War years here? The graph maps exactly the league finishes so is accurate in that respect - I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the problem: at full scale, it can be seen that 1939 is followed by 1946, but at the size on the article one can only assume that the drop that immediately follows 1939 is in 1940 and '41. If no-one else objects though, you could always put it down to my making assumptions. Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Doing... No, that's a fair point. I can easily make a more appropriate graph to skip over the War years. I'll have a fiddle with Excel and see what I can generate. Otherwise perhaps it'd be better to ditch the graph from that section altogether. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do me for now: I'll try my fine toothed comb approach on 1955-2008 later if it it would be welcome. Can I just leave you with one further issue: sixteen times, including 3 times in 4 lines at the beginning of the Ramsey section, time is attributed with the ability to see. In most genres of writing, I would have no objection, but I question its suitability in encyclopaedic text. Kevin McE (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, and yes, your fine-toothed comb on the second half of the article would be most welcome. As for time being capable of seeing then yes, I know I'm guilty of this. I'll try to revise it a bit and, if you have the time and inclination, hopefully you can let me know how I've done. Thanks for your deliberation and careful eye. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Kevin McE

edit

Here we go again:

Sorry: too tired to type any more without the danger of slipping into meaninglessness. Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/History_of_Ipswich_Town_F.C./archive1&oldid=651481775"