Wikipedia:Peer review/Coaches of F.C. Porto/archive1

Coaches of F.C. Porto

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 I want to trim out the majority of any potential issues with this page before submitting it to the ultimate scrutiny of a featured-level reviewing process. On a side note, I'd like to have some input on whether this page is more suited as an article with a comprehensive list rather than a stand-alone list with a big chunk of prose.

Thanks, Parutakupiu (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several featured lists of this type exist, all of which are for English clubs. The one exception is England national football team manager, a featured article. The difference with that one is that it discusses the wider cultural significance of the role, not just a history of who has been in the role. So based on that, I'd say list (though you may get a wider, more representative response if you ask the question at WT:FLC). The difference between this and the lists for English clubs is that in comparison Porto have changed coach as often as someone changes their socks. This probably makes it harder to write, but I don't think it prevents it from being a list type article. I'll endeavour to do a full review when I have a little more time. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The difference between this and the lists for English clubs is that in comparison Porto have changed coach as often as someone changes their socks." – Haha, true! That and perhaps some overwriting from my part are the main reasons why this page probably doesn't look like more of a regular list. I've requested this review exactly for that, so I appreciate your opinion and future comments. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oldelpaso

More detailed comments as promised:

The lead and body should be able to be read independently of one another, so the revival mentioned at the start of the body should be explained.
While it wouldn't be a dealbreaker, reviewers at FLC like to see as few redlinks as possible in a list, and about a third of the coaches currently have no article. If you have sufficient material, it'd be worth starting articles on some of them. But there's no need to make little substubs just for the sake of turning a link blue.
Reading through, the balance of which coaches are covered in more depth and which are given only a brief mention seems reasonable. There is room to cut some of it though, as there are parts which are more about the history of the club than the achievements/actions of the coaches. Maybe there is room for a slightly rewritten version of some of the material in the main Porto article, in which the history section is only brief.
Some of the recent coaches seem to have an undue weight. The achievements of Mourinho and Villas Boas were remarkable and deserve attention, but the last ten years account for a good third of the article. As much as I like highlighting the achievements of my beloved Manchester City, there's no need to mention last season's Europa League exit, for example.
I think a copyedit by a native English speaker might help tighten up some lengthy sentences. To pick a random example from near the start of the article, The latter was the Frenchman's last silverware with Porto as he left the club and was replaced by Akös Teszler, the first professional football coach in Portugal. This could be written without changing the meaning as The latter was the Frenchman's last silverware with Porto. His replacement, Akös Teszler, was Portugal's first professional football coach. The best writing advice on Wikipedia is User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. The section titled "Eliminating redundancy" may be particularly useful.
Is there any particular reason why Porto have had so many Hungarian coaches, or for that matter why there were so few Portuguese coaches until the 1960s?
Without knowing anything about the range of sources available, there seems to be an over-reliance on Tovar's book.
This article refers to coaches, the template at the bottom of it to managers. One of them should change, presumably the template.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, sure they help. In fact, the term 'manager' is not of common use in Portugal (or other southern European countries) as it is in the UK or US, because it implies a list of responsibilities that are not usually taken by the team's staff leader. The template doesn't account for that, so there's no option for changing 'managers' to 'coaches', unless I change the source code. As for the references, I admit that if it wasn't for Tovar's book (and the fact I actually bought it for this purpose), there wouldn't be much more than a list. Online sources are very few and very poor, and not even the club's website is helpful, shamefully. There might be other printed sources, but I'm not able to get them that easily. So, for now, this is the main (and sole) source. I'll see what I can do about your other points. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]