Wikipedia:Peer review/Bolton Wanderers F.C./archive1

Bolton Wanderers F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, having recently improved it to GA status I hope to improve it further in order to put it forward to FAC. I would particularly appreciate any comments on where the History section could be improved as this has recently been split out to History of Bolton Wanderers F.C. and probably needs cutting down further, but I am unsure what could be removed.

Thanks, Johnnaylor (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oldelpaso

The Everton cup tie, while an interesting tale, had no lasting significance so can probably be cut out.
There could perhaps be some mention of what pre-league feats made Bolton a sufficiently eminent side to be founder members of the Football League. Or, if there's nothing that stands out, perhaps some context about how Lancashire was the strongest footballing region at the time.
The 1926 and 1929 cup wins deserve more than the half sentence they get.
Could mention that the sale of David Jack was a world record and the first £10,000 transfer?
Estimates of the crowd for the Burnden disaster vary greatly, could do with some indication of this. The article states 85,000, but neither of references use that figure (the latter says "The turnstile count on 9 March was approximately 65,000 with some 2,000 gaining illegal entry and an estimated 15,000 turned away when the gates were closed")
From the second subsection to the third there is a fairly abrupt change of style. The broad overview style is replaced by a focus of what manager was in charge. This section seems a bit disjointed. I don't think the Pele publicity stunt is worthy of mention.
At times the article drifts into journalist-type commentary e.g. Todd was unable to save Bolton from relegation as they lost their penultimate game 1–0 to Southampton, but the Bolton board kept faith in him. The Bolton board's loyalty in Todd was rewarded when... or McGovern remained in charge for the 1983–84 season, and for a while it looked as though he was the man to turn things around. This ought to be more formal, and should steer clear of adding opinion.
Similarly, there are quite a few instances of peacock terms e.g. "~~As it is, no less than~~ 15 Bolton professionals", During the European run, Bolton gained a ~~famous~~ draw at former European champions Bayern Munich.
The Taylor Report ought to be mentioned by name in the Stadiums section instead of hidden as a link.
The length of the section on the Supporters' Association seems undue weight. Consider trimming and merging with the Rivalries section.
The list of club officials seems excessive. Do we really need to know who the club chef is?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I have acted on all of your suggestions (and some others I've been meaning to do for a while), would appreciate your opinion on the revised text if possible! Johnnaylor (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

FAC can be very demanding when it comes to prose standards. I find the advice at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing very helpful. Before taking an article to FAC I like to run through it using some of the techniques mentioned in that advice guide. The sections on "eliminating redundancy", and the extra advice on "Noun plus -ing" may be of particular use.

I will look at this, probably in combination with an attempt to act on the history narrative comment below. Johnnaylor (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few references are deadlinks.
What makes the following reliable sources? greensonscreen.co.uk, the-wanderer.co.uk, epltalk.com, footballfancast.com, stadiumguide.com, sabotagetimes.com, lionofviennasuite.com. There's also one citation to The Sun, a source better than a red-top would be preferable.

Replaced the reference from The Sun. Will try and find better sources for the others. Johnnaylor (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For more recent things, the sourcing is heavily reliant on BBC articles. Not that there's anything wrong with using the BBC, but the FA criteria call for a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". If you heavily rely on one or two publications, be prepared to justify your choices and/or omissions at FAC. Only one Wanderers related book is cited more than once, are there any other well-regarded histories of the club? As a sourcing related aside, if you want anything on Burnden, I can scan and email the relevant bits of Simon Inglis' The Football Grounds of Great Britain if you like. Likewise, I wrote most of 1904 FA Cup Final and 1926 FA Cup Final, so if you want any info from any of the sources used there, let me know.

Simon Marland has written several excellent histories of the club, but mostly they are just incremental updates (the two currently used are the 125-year anniversary history published in 2002, and the Complete Record published in 2011, which are basically identical save for the additional 9 years of stats and facts). I'm not aware of any other substantial histories of the club unfortunately, though I haven't looked particularly hard! Thankyou for the offer, I may take you up on that as I hope to eventually improve the Burnden Park and Reebok Stadium articles at least to GA. Johnnaylor (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

relegated from the Premier League at the end of last season - use actual dates, not things that will become inaccurate unless the article is updated in future.

Done. Johnnaylor (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do sources mention any particular reasons for the 1960s/70s decline?
This is quite a vague and hard to address comment, but ideally the history should build a sense of narrative. Making it so that any reader can easily grasp the important points. League pioneers from Lancashire hold their own in the early years. They achieve a rare feat by winning 3 FA Cups in a decade. Continue to compete at the highest level, with a last hurrah in 1958. Then, like Preston and Burnley, a decline as big city clubs come to dominate. A 1990s revival, a decade or so of punching above their weight in the Premier League, until we come to today. I realise that this rambling comment is next to useless. Were I a more gifted writer I'd try to demonstrate with a few edits myself. In practical terms, I guess I'm trying to say trim a bit where events have no lasting legacy for the club itself, and use that space to put more meat on the bones of the major events. For instance, the bit mentioning King Faruk of Egypt is a digression perhaps more suited to Football during World War II than Bolton Wanderers.
Bolton won the cup at their third attempt to win their first major trophy this could perhaps be reworded - presumably they attempted to win it every season ;)

Done. Johnnaylor (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesn't seem right with the chronology of the stadium move. The Taylor report (1990) is mentioned before a 1986 change, for instance.

Done. Johnnaylor (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]