| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how I need to improve this article so that it is ready for FAC. It wasn't too long ago that the article was peer reviewed and shortly after that the article passed GAN. The reason I'm nominating it so soon after the latest Peer Review is that I need suggestions on how to further improve the article for FAC now that it is a good article. I believe it is a great article with reliable sources and not many problems. Please help me improve this article.
Thanks, Reckless182 (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
knowIG Review
Automated review shows that captions should be consice. They look ok to me but that maybe something to look at.
MOS with dates flagged as somewhere although I can't see it you have 13th Januray etc apparently. But again i can't see it but you may want to check
Also flagged to many sections. Could you merge squad, hierachy, and tech staff into one section called, Current staff and then break down into a section?
Move notable players and managers into one section: notable people and move it up to come after the current staff.
Possibley put results, honors and seasons in to one section and have sub sections. Can I point out, what is the point of the separate honours page as it is exactly the same as the list apart from having 1 friendly tournie listed. Also do you really need to list the double. Either remove it or just write a sentence stating Malmo have done the league and cup double 7 times.
That should shrink it down
Swedish league, Allsvenskan three. Comma after league name needed.
Allsvenskan, as they have done for the majority of their seasons.. Scrub majority move the 2010 champs and write reigning champs.
Puncuation needed in captions, missing full stops at the end of sentences, some you have put in others you have missed.
Prose does need on, but will come back to that. KnowIG (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
'Note I see your having trouble with an IP. Unfortunatly you'll have to wait for the IP to stop being distruptive and for the page to settle down before going for FA, as it will fail because of the distruption. KnowIG (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Reckless 182 response
- I looked at a featured football club article: Aston Villa F.C. and took their example and merged notable players with current squad and out on loan to call it "Players". I merged notable managers with club hierarchy and technical staff to call it "Management". This has made the article more easier to read and the index more friendly to the eye.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I fail to see how the doubles in honour section is a problem. A featured football club article, Manchester United F.C., also lists this in honours. I will look into the image captions, the date format and the individual sentences.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the image captions will be a problem for FA, I compared to Arsenal F.C., Manchester United F.C. and Aston Villa F.C. where longer captions can be found. I also looked at the date format but couldn't find the specific problem, I did correct another one though.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Individual sentences fixed as well as image caption punctuation.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Continued
I made a small edit to the opening paragraph cause it sounded better.
were founded by nineteen young players on February 24, 1910, and initially played at Malmö IP. However, the history removed by young. Don't start with however. It should be The history of the club, however, rest of sentence
Scanian regional competitions. Think the s is not needed here.
rival Helsingborgs IF; the game was lost 3–4.[8] The club also defeated local rival IFK Malmö three times during the season and thus earned the unofficial but much desired title of Malmö's best football club. Now on tennis which is what I specialise in we've had issues with the word rival as it means anyone or any team you play. Of course IFK are alright to be referred as this but IF, don't think so unless the source states it.
The club earned a place in Division 2 Sydsvenska Serien. They won this division and were promoted to Svenska Serien Västra, the highest tier in Sweden at the time. However, they were relegated after one year in this division, and found themselves back in Sydsvenska Serien until they finally achieved promotion to the highest tier in Swedish football, Allsvenskan, in 1931 The club were awarded a sport in the second divison, syd ser. Malmo won this division on debut (is it or did they wait a few seasons, if later ignore debut) and were promoted to... In their debut in the top flight, Malmo however, were relegated to Sydsvenska serien, where they stayed until they achieved promotion to the rest of what is already written is fine.
The club achieved respectable league positions in two seasons, but in 1934 they were relegated as a penalty for breaking amateur regulations. The club had paid their players a small sum of money for each game. Although against the rules, this was common at the time; however Malmö FF were the only club to show it in their accounting records. In addition to relegation back to Division 2, the club suffered bans for the entire board and twenty-six players. The unofficial version of events suggests that local rival IFK Malmö reported the violation to the Swedish Football Association. The belief in IFK Malmös's involvement has contributed to the long-standing rivalry between the clubs
Remove respectable as that is arguable what do you call it etc. Write the Club avoided relgation for two seasons, but in 1934 were relgated for breaking league rules around amateur players. Malmo broke the rules by paying small sums of money each game to their players. the entire Malmo board and all of its squad recieved bans. Involvment in the matter. Just improves it a bit I think
After two years of positions in the lower part of the league, in 1939 the club reached their highest position yet, third place in Allsvenskan,. Subjective and a bit werid. Remove After etc and start with In 1939.
the club won 2–1 in the next to last game against AIK in front. Won their penultimate game of the season against AIK, 2-1
This resulted in Swedish Championships. The club won the....
The club started the 1960s with a young team and achieved fairly good league positions. Remove this possibley
an incredible 28 goals to win the goal scorer league. Scrap incredible, write twenty eight goals to finish as the league's top goal scorer.
After finishing as runners up for the last two years of the 1960s, Malmö FF started the most successful decade of their history with a Swedish Championship in 1970. In the 1970s the club won Allsvenskan in 1970, In addition to the 1970 triumph, the club also won Allsvenskan in...
, West Germany (present day Germany) Feel that the (present day Germany) is a bit crass and is not needed.
Trevor Francis scored the only goal of the match winning it 1–0 for Nottingham. Trevor Francis scored the only goal of the match as Forrest won the title 1-0.
Nevertheless the 1979 final is the most significant moment in the history of Malmö FF. Sounds POV and OR to me.
ordinary season. Regular season.
Nevertheless the 1980s are regarded as a very successful period for Malmö FF. Again!
confirming it as the darkest moment in the history of the club. Debatable. Being relegated for cheeting would be darker.
Malmö FF have in many ways reflected the multi-cultural nature of the city of Malmö. In 1990, defender Jean-Paul Vondenburg became the first black player playing for the Swedish national football team, in a game against the United Arab Emirates.[20] In 1998, midfielder/striker Yksel Osmanovski became the first Muslim player for Sweden, when Sweden lost 1–0 to the USA[21] POV and rather trival in a way.
The results for the next few years disappointed fans hoping to see the club finishing at the top of the table. POV.
Again records and honours do they really need a separte section.
Anyways thats my review, if the sources state the POV things then fine if not remove or reword. If I GA'd reviewd this I would be edgey to pass because of the POV, but you have a good article if you tighten it up and who knows what will happen at FAC. KnowIG (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Reckless 182 additional response
I have done some copyediting, reworded some sentences and deleted some. I agree with you for the majority of your concerns but I have decided to keep some. The article has been trough a thorough copyedit process by a member of Wikipedia:COPYEDITORS so I do believe that it is fine. Regarding the POV issues, I reworded the sentence about the darkest moment but kept the others for now. The source for these statements is the official book written for the 100 years celebration of the club and is a good reference for the clubs history. No Malmö FF would argue against the statements made about the 1979 final being the biggest moment and the 1980s being very successful (5 league wins in a row, how is that debatable?). For the sentence about multi culture, I believe the sentence should be kept, the club is very well known for this and these two players symbolize that fact. For the honours and records sections I could perhaps do another arrangement of some kind to make it look better, I will look into this.--Reckless182 (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
About the records and honours sections, I decided to merge them and to have the specific records on a seperate article as many other football club articles already have. Layoutwise I think the article looks really good as it is right now. Perhaps I will merge some minor articles into the records and statistics article but thats not discuss here right now. If you do have any additional comments please share, if not I believe we can conclude this peer review.--Reckless182 (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well obviously I'm not Swedish nor am I a fan of Malmo, so I don't have the book sources. So for me good article since you say everything implied is from a book. I have nothing else to add good luck in the FAC KnowIG (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)