Wikipedia:Peer review/List of UK hit singles by footballers/archive1

List of UK hit singles by footballers

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Other than creating articles on all the singles which don't currently have them, please let me know what else I need to do to get this to potential FL status.....

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: An interesting bit of sporting/pop culture research. Among sportsmen why is it, seemingly, only footballers who do these things? Or have others tried, less successfully?

Added a mention of the small number of hits for active competitors from sports other than football to the lead, let me know if you think it's too "off-topic". Trying to come up with anything about why the releasing of records is/was a big deal in football but never in any other sport would probably require too much OR........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, here are some comments on the prose and on the table formats:-

First line: A bit verbose and with a repeat of "released". Suggest: "British football teams have released records at least since the 1930s, when Arsenal issued a now-collectible disc."
- Done
17 rather than seventeen, per MoS
- Done
"...reached number one on the chart dated 16 May." Why not simplify to "reached number one on the 16 May."? And is "number one" (lower case) in accordance with convention? I'm sure I've seen Number One, Number 1 and No.1 in hit song articles, but I can't recall seeing "number one". Same query with "number twelve" later.
- The published charts only have a "week ending" date. I don't know on which day of the week the chart was actually published in 1970 (it has changed repeatedly down the years), so I can't say for definite on which day it actually reached number one, hence the wording I have used. Does that make sense..........?
Likewise, shouldn't it be Top Ten or Top 10, not "top ten"?
- Done
Italicise "en masse"
- Done
Table format: Hits recorded by teams:-
- Column widths look untidy - some too wide, some too narrow. The "Peak position" and "Weeks" columns are far too wide, the "Teams" column looks cramped. Suggest you readjust all widths, using "!width= "
- Dashes should be centered
  - Done - should the names in column 2 be centred too? It looks a bit silly with them on the left......
- For clarity, Notes (A) and (B) should be placed under this table, not the next.
  - Done
Similar format comments apply to the second table.

That's really all. As I said, most interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comments, will get to the table stuff tomorrow, a bit technical for now considering how half asleep I'm feeling :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]