Wikipedia:Peer review/El Clásico/archive1

El Clásico

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is one of the boarder line cases between list and article. But per Ballon d'Or I'll file this at the FLC and not GA. Please review prose for errors, and do not be afraid of copyediting yourself if that is easier than c&p. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, thanks for your work on it, but I think it needs a fiar amount of additional work before it owuld be ready for FLC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

When I type "El Clasico" in the search box, there are several other articles that show up. I think there should be a disambiguation page and a link to it at the top of this article.
The lead seems fairly short and does not seem to be a true summary of the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but most of the various cups and section headers are not even mentioned in the lead.
The article makes a number of statements that are not backed up by a reference: From the early days of football in Spain the two clubs were seen as representatives of the Spanish Centralized State and Catalonia, as well as the two cities themselves which have moved in different directions culturally speaking. needs a ref. The second pargraph of "Di Stéfano transfer" also needs a ref, as does the whole section "Players who played for both clubs", which even has a citation needed tag. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Some references are not complete in terms of information that should be given. Current ref 19 is just a title "CIS Monthly survey, May 2007" and other refs are missing the publisher. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Also need to make sure that the ref really backs up the claim made in the article. In the lead I checked one ref, for It is one of the most followed football matches in the world, being the most followed football match between two clubs after the Champions League final, watched by hundreds of millions of people around the world. This is referenced to a BBC article, but I read the whole thing and it does not really support that claim. The only place it talks about numbers watching around the world that I saw is "When Barcelona and Real Madrid met in the 2002 Champions League semi-finals, more than 500m people in over 100 countries were glued to their TV screens." [1] which does not come close to saying what the article claims.
Use of bold face type does not follow WP:ITALIC, especially bold and wikilinked.
Is this quote typed correctly? Phil Ball, the author of Morbo: The Story of Spanish Football, calls the El Clásico "an re-enactment of the Spanish Civil War".[7][8] Correct English would be "a re-enactment"
The two four-column tables in Head to Head could be combined as one seven-column table.
Need to explain what parts of thetables mean - for example "(H/T)" is not explianed and as a non-football person I have to confess I do not know what it means. Also the number(s) after the person's name in the goals scored columns seem to be the minute when the goal was scored, but this is not explianed either.
It seems odd that the headers do not match the names of the cup in some cases - so the header "All Spanish Cup Matches" is for Copa del Rey, and "All League Cup Matches" is for Copa de la Liga.
Per WP:HEAD try to keep headers simple - so instead of "All League Cup Matches" why not just "League Cup" or "Copa de la Liga"?
There is almost nothing on the name "El Clásico" - when did the name start to be used? Is it known who came up with it? Is there any History of the name or where there other names in use before it?
Article needs a copyedit for polish, spelling, and grammar in places. I read for comprehension, but still saw numerous places that needed correction.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review (though you wont be reading this). I've implemented most of your suggestions. Sandman888 (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]