Wikipedia:Peer review/Tottenham Hotspur F.C./archive1

Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

I've listed this article for peer review to get the artcle to GA status.

Thanks, Govvy (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

I had planned on doing this article myself "one day" but never prioritised. Glad to see it here.

• The crest section is choppy - the bit on badges could be more in chronological order. And needs citations

• Fix tags elsewhere

Done.Hzh (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Could expand on the background for the rivalries a bit more. Is the Chelsea one a thing like the other two though?

There is an article on Chelsea-Tottenham rivalry, although the rivalry has never been as intense as the one between Arsenal and Tottenham. (Speaking to Chelsea fans, they would sometimes consider Arsenal their main rival, sometimes Tottenham, occasionally other West London clubs, although they never seem to be as intense as against Leeds, it's just one of those strange things). It is possible to add a rivalry section, but I would not add too much here as they are covered in greater depth in their individual articles. Hzh (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Add a bit on rivalries, although it could still be expanded. Hzh (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• This commitment is an example of professional sport supporting the communities and people who support and enrich them through their attendance and other participation and support - this sentence sounds puffy and advertorial. I'd remove it and let the facts speak for themselves.

Done. Hzh (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• ... reduced their carbon emissions by an impressive 14% - err...remove the "an impressive"

Done. Hzh (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Umm...isn't there a hooligan group? Needs mentioning if there is...

Well, the problems with that is there is very little on the internet and in the media for the Tottenham firm nicknamed Yid Army, there are videos on YouTube and maybe a few articles but it seems so superficial I don't see the point in adding it to the article. Govvy (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a number of sources for Yid Army, e.g. [1][2][3] [4][5][6], although labelling them a hooligan group is debatable (some of them are/were but many simply adopted it as their identity as supporters of the club). It is possible to write something on hooliganism in the club, but the most notable incidents happened in the 1970s. Although you still have the odd reports now and then [7][8], it has not been a serious issue for a while now bar the occasional fights between fans. It might be more appropriate in an article on Spurs fanbase, which I may start some time later, although it is possible to add a sentence or two here. Hzh (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I think a sentence or two is fine as a summary. Hooligan possibly wrong word to use, but the tribal nature of the supporters of various English football clubs is a notable phenomenon discussed worldwide. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Added a short paragraph on hooliganism. Hzh (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

I made these edits, please revert any you don't like. Is it possible to reduce the number of "won"s in the lead?

Reworded. Hzh (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to hidden-text the further reading. Many reviewers don't like these kitchen-sink lists Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of references are linked to the books listed, so I'm not sure how it would work if they are hidden. Hzh (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Think about it, I'm inclined to leave it unhidden, however, I do think many of the entries are unnecessary, for example biographies of individual players. Trimming it may help. Hzh (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Further reading sections are for material that hasn't been used as a reference in the article. Generally, I wonder if a reference has not needed to be used at all, why is it that essential to list in a section like this....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I think those books can be moved out of "Further reading" into "Bibilography". I have trimmed just under half of the books, so it won't look too bad once the other books used have been moved out. Even though "Further reading" is not intended for reference, it is possible to put references in there if the reference section is too big to read properly (which won't be the case here if the books used are placed in a separate bibligraphy section). Hzh (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok cool. not a big deal anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Madshurtie

Many of the trophies recently added to the honours section may lack notability (e.g. the Feyenoord Jubilee Tournament and the Peace Cup). When the Arsenal honours section expanded, it generated a lot of controversy, which was resolved with a lengthy discussion by the project on WT:FOOTY. The consensus was that less notable trophies should be spun off into another article. The same approach has been adopted in the Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Bayern Munich articles. My suggestion is to adopt it here too. Madshurtie (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The page looks fine as is, and friendlies are not honours. One editor has already reverted your changes.Davefelmer (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Your behaviour is very strange Davefelmer. I suggest moving some friendlies off this page's honours list and you say The page looks fine as is, and friendlies are not honours. You like saying they aren't, but why on earth are you saying it here?

One editor has already reverted your changes, but my edits were over the headings not over what I'm suggesting.

More strangely, this is the first time you've ever participated in a Peer Review, not to give a review, but to oppose my suggestion (even though you want friendlies removed?). Given our discussions on other pages, I could be mistaken for thinking you've followed my list of contributions here just to argue with me. Peer Review is a place for editors to provide suggestions to the requester, not continue arguments with other editors.

At any rate, my link shows the consensus among the project, which is what matters. Madshurtie (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)