Wikipedia:Peer review/Brentford F.C./archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to follow in a small pet project. It's a strong B class and I really need to know the vulnerable places.
Huge thanks, Earth605 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Use section layout per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs - for example, stuff like "Colours and badge" should be above "Players", not below. Same with "Rivalries".
- I would rename "Best pefromances" section to "Records", per layout above.
- "See also" section should be above notes and references, and not below, per MOS:LAYOUT.
- "Kit suppliers and shirt sponsors" section is based on WP:OR, none of the back / sleeve / shorts etc. sponsors are sourced, and I don't think this is needed anyway. If you can find a source (note that images cannot be used a source - that would be just your interpretation of the image, which is WP:OR - it needs to be a published reliable source that is confirming those sponsors), then include only main front shirt sponsor, and not sleeves, shorts and other trivial stuff. I'm pretty sure that yearly Premier League handbooks are providing this information about sponsors, but this can be used only for 2021–present, unless something like that exists for the lower divisions as well.
- Rename that section about stadiums to simply "Stadiums", and I would prefer this to be mentioned in prose, not a bulletin list. Write a few sentences about the current stadium, like the capacity and since when it is used etc., then some words about Griffin Park since it was used for over a century, and lastly you can mention something like "The team has played at several stadiums in its early history, namely Clifden Road (1889–1891), Benn's Field (1891–1895)..." etc.
- Some entries in "In popular culture" section are unsourced...and I think this section is kinda trivial?
- I would remove "Promoted" from the list of honours. If they finished 2nd, then use "Runners-up", not "Promoted". Being just promoted is not a honour; only winners, runners-up, and play-off winners should be listed.
- Since there is only one note in entire article, the "Notes" section is kinda unnecessary. Move that "No system of promotion in place" note directly to the Honours section.
- Why is there an asterisk (*) next to the London Senior Cup winners 1897–98 in Honours section? It is not explained anywhere what this asterisk represents.
That's just a general manual of style and layout review for now that needs to be improved if you plan to promote it to GA, I haven't read the prose or checked any of the sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for all! I will be working in this in a future as I am caught by other stuff now. Earth605 (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)