Previous peer review

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 all points from previous peer review have been addressed, and I want this to become featured.

Thanks, Tomlock01 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso

First, the usual disclaimer that I am far from neutral when it comes to matters concerning Manchester United.

• There are a few references to fansites etc. Given that there is probably more literature out there about United than any other club, there ought to be more reliable sources. This is something you can guarantee would come up if the article was taken to FAC.
• This is very minor, but for convenience could all the books referenced be included in the bibliography?

DONE

• Not sure Neville being the captain merits a place in the lead.

Agreed, especially as it is mentioned in the box. so DONE.

• Worth mentioning that it was the First Division of the Football League that Newton Heath joined.

DONE

• Some sort of wikilink might be useful for "winding-up order".

DONE

• Ernest Mangnall is worth mentioning by name as United's first successful manager.

DONE

• The club would have to wait another two years before winning any more trophies – winning the First Division for the second time in the 1910–11 season – which would prove to be the last time the club won the First Division for 41 years (the longest they have gone without winning the league in their history). This passage is very passive, "would have to", "would prove to be". In any case, two years isn't exactly a long wait. Mention of the 41 year gap would be better placed in the next section (i.e. the end of the gap), to keep the chronology clean.

DONE

• While the successes of the modern era mean focus on that is inevitable, the early years section seems skinny. Maybe its my bias showing, but I'd mention that United came very close to going out of business in the 1930s.
• It is not obvious why Busby's appointment of Jimmy Murphy is of sufficient importance to be included.

I've added in a sentence to explain why it was significant. so DONE.

• Not too keen on the easter egg links to cup finals where only the year is linked.
• Ruud van Nistelrooy's departure doesn't strike me as significant enough to merit mention.

DONE

• The 1960s crest image would be better in the Colours and crest section. It illustrates the influence of the coat of arms of the City of Manchester more clearly than the subsequent crest.

DONE

• To be pedantic, the green/yellow shirt was a third kit in the 1990s.

DONE

• This was the last kit supplied by Manchester sportswear firm, Umbro. - A bit trivia-esque, and the reference is a weak one.

removed. DONE

• Stadium section is generally strong, but I'd drop the last paragraph. It is crystal-balling, and is referenced to a fansite.

Agreed, so removed. DONE.

• The main thing that is missing from the article is a sense of the global behemoth that the club now is. The popularity of the club in Asia ought to be mentioned, and perhaps its regular position at the top of football club rich lists. If I'm not mistaken (I don't have a reference for it to hand) I think the club have broken the British transfer record more times than any other too.

Yea, you're not the first person to say this and it is something I've been meaning to add. I just need to find a few hours to download some papers on it and get my old books out of the loft.

• I don't like sponsorship sections, though that is mostly personal preference.

What is it you don't like about it?

• The list of club officials looks to breach WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Do we really need to know who the club doctor or assistant club secretary is? I don't even know what a "head of human performance" is.

I disagree, but I'll add this on the discussion page and see what the consensus is.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scartol

This is a very thorough article, packed with good information and enjoyable to read. Well done! I have some questions and suggestions; the questions are mostly rhetorical, so they're more designed for you to consider, not actually answer.

I may or may not be able to watch this page closely, so please drop me a line if you have questions or concerns you want feedback on. Congrats on your fine research, and I look forward to someday seeing the FA star up top.

Images

• The article feels weighed down with too many images. I recommend removing the chart (impressive though it is), and the Treble trophies too. (Again, they're nice, but not as useful to the reader as images of people and places.) I'd also suggest removing the 1960s badge — perhaps that would be useful if/when a separate article appears about the crest itself?

I've removed the trophies and the badge to the appropriate sub-pages, but I've kept the chart, because I think its important, and it's in many football club featured articles and it is bound to come up at FAC if I remove it.

• The pic of Ferguson faces away from the text, but images should generally face it. Maybe replace it with the lead image on Alex Ferguson?

I've moved the old fella to the left so that he faces the text. It works well because there was a picture below it anyway.

Lead

• Having won a joint-record 18 league titles... I think the link should go in "joint-record", or maybe include the numeral 18 in the link. As it is, the reader assumes we're going to a page explaining league titles.

Agreed, especially since the FA Cup and League Cup wikilinks lead to the appropriate page on the title itself. I've moved the wikilink to 'joint-record' and kept the 'league titles' linking to the Premier League page.

• Generally speaking, you should only wikilink items in the lead that are controversial, or are likely to be challenged. (I don't think those apply to the date of Ferguson's hiring, heh.)

Done. :)

History

• If you use nicknames for some of the year spans ("Early years", "Busby years"), you should use them for all of the year spans.

I've changed 'Alex Ferguson era' to 'Ferguson years', but I really can't think of a good name for the preceding period. Any suggestions? Wilderness years, perhaps?

• Jimmy Murphy took over as manager while Busby recovered from his injuries... I assume Busby was on the plane that crashed? If so, we should specify in the previous paragraph that other folks on board were hurt.

He was indeed. I've changed the above paragraph to reflect this.

• In the US, the full name of a sport team is usually preceded by "the" — "the Dallas Cowboys", etc. I assume this is not true about UK teams? (It's odd for me to read "... which they lost to Bolton Wanderers", but I assume it's a regional difference.)

You are correct. "The" Bolton Wanderers would sound odd to anyone from the UK.

• Wilf McGuinness is a cool name.

And a very common one in Ireland!

• A 1990 victory over Crystal Palace in the FA Cup Final replay (after a 3–3 draw) saved Ferguson's career. Explain why his career was in jeopardy?

I believe this was explained in previous versions of the article, but I think I removed it in an attempt to cut down the article in size. I suppose if someone was curious they could check out the sub-article (which is linked) or the reference.

• ... what is considered one of the greatest comebacks of all time. This should have a citation after it.

Agreed. I'll look for one. Now done.

• Ferguson was subsequently knighted for his services to football. Could we get a year for this? "subsequently" feels clunky here.

"Subsequently" doesn't feel clunky to me, because people are generally knighted at the same times of the year, every year (the Queens birthday honours (in June) being the case here, I believe).

• I suppose it's natural, but the chronology seems to get very very detailed in the 2000s. Given the rapid pace of earlier sections, it seems like this should be addressed.

Yes this is something I had noticed too, this is, of course, because it is the most recent but then again it is also because this period has seen rapid and sustained successes, whereas in previous periods they were most spread out.

• Manchester United regained the Premier League in the 2006–07 season. Is the word "championship" missing here? Or should it say "rejoined"? Or am I just dense?

No, you're not dense, but that just makes sense as it is. To say the 'Premier League championship' here would not sound right.

• Manchester United then secured their third consecutive Premier League title, the second time they have achieved this feat. This doesn't make sense.

It was the second time they had won three consecutive Premier League titles.

Crest and colours

• I wonder if we should link to Manchester_City_Council#Coat_of_arms?

Does no harm, so done.

• I'm totally unfamiliar with the term "away strips". Is this a typo, or is it a regional difference?

Regional difference I think, this seems normal to me. Would 'kit' sound more familiar?

• In some spots I wonder if there is a singular/plural problem, or if it's a US/UK difference. For example: "Manchester United's current home kit features red shirts with a shallow black chevron..." It makes more sense to say "... features a red shirt ...". But maybe it's just me.

I suppose they both make sense, but I prefer your version, so I've changed it.

Support

• After Malcolm Glazer's takeover in 2005... It's odd for this to be the first mention of ownership. Why not put that section just after "History"?

Do you mean put the 'Support' or the 'Ownership' section just after History?

• The West Stand of Old Trafford – the "Stretford End" – is the home end and traditional source of the club's most vocal support. This feels stuck in.. Maybe it belongs in the previous section?

I think this has already been moved.

• I wonder if this section should be renamed, since it includes the subsection "Rivalries". I can't think of a replacement, but it's weird to have "Rivalries" as a subsection of "Support".

Hmmm, I personally think "Rivalries" and "Support" go hand in hand, because it is generally speaking the fans that decide the rivalries, not the clubs.

Global brand

• The attacking style of play adopted by this team (in contrast to the defensive-minded "catenaccio" approach favoured by the leading Italian teams of the era) "captured the imagination of the English footballing public". We should have a citation directly following this quote, and it would be good to mention in the text who said it.

I've added a citation (it was the same one as at the end of the paragraph), and it was the author of the referenced book who said it, I think.

• I wonder if the bit about George Best is best suited (ha!) in the next paragraph, which discusses off-field personalities in general.

I wondered this as I wrote it, but George Best is more relevant to the association with the liberalisation of Western society, in my opinion. Besides, sponsorship, merchandise and TV rights (obviously), which are all relevant to David Beckham, were not as relevant to Best.

• Since the inception of the Premier League, Manchester United has been the highest-grossing club in the league from the BSkyB broadcasting deal. The wording in the last part of this sentence is awkward. Maybe "participating in"? Maybe I just don't know enough about the deal.

Agreed, so changed.

• The club's development of its membership scheme – One United – through which anyone with an affinity to the club could purchase club branded goods and services, or those from partner companies of United, notably financial services products (through Manchester United Finance supporters can purchase products such as credit cards) and Manchester United-branded media services such as the club's dedicated television channel – MUTV, and text messaging services, has allowed the club to expand its fan base to those beyond the reach of the club's Old Trafford stadium. This is IMPOSSIBLE for me to understand. I think I have an idea of what's being said, but the syntax is hard to follow. Please rewrite it, preferably as two or more sentences.

Done!

• Could we have an example of the lower-tier "platinum" sponsors?

Done.

• Nike manages United's merchandising operation... This is the first time I remember seeing the club referred to as simply "United". If it's a common convention, that's fine. But I was under the impression that you were trying to be consistent with either "Manchester United" or "the club".

Well spotted, I thought I'd caught all of these.

• In September 2006, a £56.5 million deal with... We've had the pound symbol in other places before this sentence. Any reason why this is the first wikilink?

I don't think so. Done.

• Do we really need to know the dates when sponsorship deals took effect? Feels like extraneous information to me.

Hmmm. I guess not. But I'll leave it in for now, because its easily removed, if thats ok.

Ownership and finances and other sections

• I didn't know fans teamed up to stop Murdoch from buying the team. That's so cool!

:-)

• I don't understand why we're getting a relative value conversion for the Glazer deal. Seems like it should just be what the value was at the time.

I'm not sure what you mean. I only see the conversion to dollars, which is what it was at the time.

• The bit about debt refinancing comes out of the blue. Start that paragraph with an explanation of where the debt came from, if you can. (Otherwise, just start with: "By 2006, the club owned xxxx worth of debt.")

I've had a re-giggle, and mentioned the leveraging in the previous paragraph. hope this makes it clearer.

• I assume nothing more is available about the "Red Knights" meetings?

More is available about the Red Knight's intentions, but there was a question as to whether this would violate WP:Recentism

• I don't know how valuable the "Club officials" list is. Feels like WP:Listcruft to me.

Not the fist person to mention this, I've already raised it on the discussion page.

• I haven't scrutinized the honours section or the references very closely — hopefully before FAC you'll have someone with more expertise than me review those areas.

Oki doki, looks fine to me but I've read this article so many times sometimes obvious things pass me by.

Good luck with the article! Kudos again for your hard work. Scartol • Tok 21:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Most of the credit should go to PeeJay for this article, who has been tirelessly working on it for years. I've only been working on it for a few months.

You give me too much credit, Tom. I have merely kept the article in order for years. It is other editors, not I, who have done most of the cleanups and addition of content. – PeeJay 00:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well whoever the credit goes to, lets hope this article gets to FA, because as the worlds greatest football club, it really should be featured! Tomlock01 (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]