Wikipedia:Peer review/1999 FA Cup Final/archive1: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
mark PR as closed |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Please do not use level 1-3 section headings or horizontal rules in this peer review. Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics, and do not paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead. Peer review pages should not be moved. |
Please do not use level 1-3 section headings or horizontal rules in this peer review. Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics, and do not paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead. Peer review pages should not be moved. |
||
--> |
--> |
||
'''This peer review discussion has been closed.'''<br/> <noinclude>[[Category:August 2015 peer reviews]]</noinclude> |
|||
{{Peer review page|topic=everydaylife}} |
|||
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is very close to Good Article status and requires only a few changes to meet that level. The area I am most concerned about is whether the article addresses the topic with an appropriate level of detail. I feel some sections may be over-detailed, whereas I'm worried I may have left out something glaringly obvious but I just can't see it. I'd also like comments about the language used in the article, as I may be too close to the topic to see if I've used any unclear language. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is very close to Good Article status and requires only a few changes to meet that level. The area I am most concerned about is whether the article addresses the topic with an appropriate level of detail. I feel some sections may be over-detailed, whereas I'm worried I may have left out something glaringly obvious but I just can't see it. I'd also like comments about the language used in the article, as I may be too close to the topic to see if I've used any unclear language. |
||
Thanks, – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 12:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks, – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 12:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
* A quick comment after just noticing this. The most obvious fault with the article is that the match summary is too short, especially in comparison to other sections. Essentially, this is the main focus of the article it needs to be expanded. [[User:NapHit|NapHit]] ([[User talk:NapHit|talk]]) 18:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC) |
* A quick comment after just noticing this. The most obvious fault with the article is that the match summary is too short, especially in comparison to other sections. Essentially, this is the main focus of the article it needs to be expanded. I would also rename the road to Wembley section as route to the final, as it sounds too tabloidy at the moment and have separate sections for United and Newcastle. [[User:NapHit|NapHit]] ([[User talk:NapHit|talk]]) 18:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
**Fair enough about needing to expand the section. I don't have access to many sources, and the ones I do have don't go into the game in much detail. I'll see what else I can find. As for the "Road to Wembley" section, I'm interested to know what other people make of this. "Road to Wembley" is a common term given to the way each team gets to the cup final, but I understand what you say about it being a bit tabloidy. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 21:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
'''Brief comments by Lemonade51''' – Without getting into detail on prose, |
|||
*Lead should act as a summary for the entire article, there's very little about the final itself other than who scored, and nothing on the route to Wembley for both teams. |
|||
*"Since Manchester United qualified for the 1999–2000 UEFA Champions League both by virtue of '''winning the 1998–99 competition''' and by winning the 1998–99 FA Premier League, England's place in the 1999–2000 UEFA Cup usually reserved for the FA Cup winners was given to Newcastle United as the runners-up." this is very confusing. I thought winning the Premier League would be enough for Manchester United to earn a place in the Champions League? |
|||
*As NapHit says, match summary could be beefed up. [http://www.theguardian.com/football/1999/may/24/newsstory.sport1 Guardian], [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Football%3a+96-second+demolition%3b+FA+CUP+FINAL+1999%3b+NEWCASTLE+UNITED+0...-a060384555 Daily Mirror], [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/FOOTBALL%3a+MAKE+MINE+A+TREBLE%3b+MAN+UTD+2+NEWCASTLE+0%3b+Two+down%2c+one+to...-a060171127 Sunday Mirror], [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/It%27s+two+down+one+to+go+as+United+hit+double+top%3b+Manchester+Utd+2...-a060198901 Sunday Mercury] reports are online, and I'm sure Newsbank has ''The Sun'', ''News of the World'', ''The Times'' and ''Independent'' editions. |
|||
*No issue with "Road to Wembley" |
|||
*Make sure statistical statements are sourced, such as "By contrast, Newcastle United had finished 13th out of the 20 teams in the Premier League, and had been knocked out of the Cup Winners' Cup in the first round and the League Cup in the fourth round." [[User:Lemonade51|Lemonade51]] ([[User talk:Lemonade51|talk]]) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 01:42, 10 August 2015
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is very close to Good Article status and requires only a few changes to meet that level. The area I am most concerned about is whether the article addresses the topic with an appropriate level of detail. I feel some sections may be over-detailed, whereas I'm worried I may have left out something glaringly obvious but I just can't see it. I'd also like comments about the language used in the article, as I may be too close to the topic to see if I've used any unclear language.
Thanks, – PeeJay 12:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- A quick comment after just noticing this. The most obvious fault with the article is that the match summary is too short, especially in comparison to other sections. Essentially, this is the main focus of the article it needs to be expanded. I would also rename the road to Wembley section as route to the final, as it sounds too tabloidy at the moment and have separate sections for United and Newcastle. NapHit (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough about needing to expand the section. I don't have access to many sources, and the ones I do have don't go into the game in much detail. I'll see what else I can find. As for the "Road to Wembley" section, I'm interested to know what other people make of this. "Road to Wembley" is a common term given to the way each team gets to the cup final, but I understand what you say about it being a bit tabloidy. – PeeJay 21:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Brief comments by Lemonade51 – Without getting into detail on prose,
- Lead should act as a summary for the entire article, there's very little about the final itself other than who scored, and nothing on the route to Wembley for both teams.
- "Since Manchester United qualified for the 1999–2000 UEFA Champions League both by virtue of winning the 1998–99 competition and by winning the 1998–99 FA Premier League, England's place in the 1999–2000 UEFA Cup usually reserved for the FA Cup winners was given to Newcastle United as the runners-up." this is very confusing. I thought winning the Premier League would be enough for Manchester United to earn a place in the Champions League?
- As NapHit says, match summary could be beefed up. Guardian, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Sunday Mercury reports are online, and I'm sure Newsbank has The Sun, News of the World, The Times and Independent editions.
- No issue with "Road to Wembley"
- Make sure statistical statements are sourced, such as "By contrast, Newcastle United had finished 13th out of the 20 teams in the Premier League, and had been knocked out of the Cup Winners' Cup in the first round and the League Cup in the fourth round." Lemonade51 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)