History of Ipswich Town F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been expanded over the past couple of weeks from 20K with two citations to 44K with 85 citations, primarily by me and User:Dweller. I think it's pretty comprehensive in terms of the history of the club but, no doubt, as I've become too close to it, the prose needs work and there may be clear errors that I'm missing since I can no longer see the wood for the trees! My ultimate goal is to take this article to WP:FAC but won't do so until this PR runs a good and thorough course. As always, I humbly bare my soul open to the scrutiny of the community and thank you in advance for the time and effort you may spend providing me with feedback. I will endeavour to handle all comments, criticism etc as openly and quickly as possible. Cheers everyone... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nothing of use... Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

Another excellent article from TRM, all the points I've picked up are pretty minor.....

• Southern League links to a dab page in the lead
• Also in the lead, might "the season after winning promotion" read better as "one season after winning promotion"? I can't decide, personally.....
• "The club was founded" - when was this? I realise it was stated in the lead but I think it should be re-stated here in the "body"
• Date of first match isn't Wikilinked
• "Followed the week after with...." - should be "followed by", I think
• Also, where the club's original and current names are shown in bold, I think either both should use "FC" or both should use "Football Club", rather than one of each as it is at the moment
• Sentence starting "Ipswich Town's results" is not grammatically correct, as the subject of the second clause is the club, not their results
• Following sentence is missing an "of"
• Wikilink Corinthians F.C. (I presume this is the club that's meant)
• I think the sentence about the proposed professional breakaway should state the timeframe of this, especially as it's the first sentence of a section
• The bit about Garneys scoring four in a game made me realise that I'd read an earlier sentence as stating that Knights scored his three hat tricks all in that one 15-goal game. With hindsight I realise this was a very silly way to interpret that sentence, but maybe a slight rewrite might reduce the potential for confusion on the part of idiots :-)
  • Not sure I get you on this point. I've clarified that Garneys was the first professional to score four in a game as to distinguish him from Knights who scored nine as an amateur - is that the sort of thing you had in mind? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Heaven knows, I think I was half asleep when I read that bit...... :-P ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Maybe Wikilink "First Division" in the bit about losing to Preston, as it's the first time it's been mentioned within the body of the article
• In the 1969-82 section, this bit seems to have a word or two missing: "However the season was not without for the club as it secured a 1–0 victory over Arsenal in the FA Cup Final at Wembley Stadium"
• First sentence of the 95 onwards section has "Division playoff", presumably this should say "Division One playoff"? Also, shouldn't "playoff" have a hyphen?
• Sentence starting "failure to win" needs tidying up as the subject jumps about a bit :-)

Once these are sorted I'd be more than happy to support this to FA! ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks as ever Chris. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Kevin McE

You do realise that by going for a PR during half term week you subject yourself to the scrutiny of professional pedants? :@)

• until 1936 when the club turned professional and played in the Southern League. Was the decision to go professional a result of promotion: was promotion only possible if they went pro? If there is no causal linkage between the two, it looks odd to have them both.
  • Okay, they were elected into the league (sort of promotion but not really) so I've clarified the point in the lead. Is it enough? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The fact is that ITFC "contributed" 2 England managers: the significance of such contribution is, I would suggest, for readers to infer, or not.
  • Neutralised (can't help it, very proud!). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Was the precursor Ipswich Association FC, or Ipswich AFC? Would fans have said that they followed Ipswich Association? Is this like refering to Leeds United as Leeds United Association?
  • Hmm, fair point. Ipswich AFC it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• under the presidency of the Ipswich Member of Parliament, Thomas Cobbold.: town already linked, Member of Parliament in full makes it look, IMHO, almost fawning: would local MP Thomas Cobbold suffice?
  • Fair again. Fawning toned down! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Ipswich Association played their first home game at Broom Hill, a ground in the town, on 2 November 1878, a 6–1 victory over Stoke Wanderers, followed by a 2–0 victory over Harwich in the club's first away match. Too many minor clauses! Maybe Ipswich Association's first match was a 6–1 home victory over Stoke Wanderers at the Broom Hill ground on 2 November 1878. Second match less noteworthy than first, can be inferred that the home ground is local.
  • Split it a bit, kept the first away match in there but in a separate sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 2nd XI, and later representative XI: the latin numeral is arguably archaic, or for the linguistic community of football fans: I'd suggest "team".
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Record win: should this be described as Ipswich's acheivement, or Ipswich Association's? Given that Hat trick#football defines a hat-trick as "when a player scores three goals in a single game" then maybe John Knights' feat should be a treble (triple?) hat-trick, or even (noting the linguistic exclusivity element) nine goals?
  • I'm sticking with Ipswich now I've gone for Ipswich A.F.C. above it. I like treble hat-trick above nine goals. The exclusivity should be (marginally) offset by the wikilink. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The silverware link that you have specifically refers to the League championship, FA Cup and European trophies, but not, amazingly, the Suffolk Challenge cup: maybe rephrase, or at least lose the link.
  • Rephrased to trophy. I can't believe the Suffolk Challenge Cup isn't mentioned in that article........! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Entering a competition is not a gradual process: they either began competing in, or they first entered (although either would benefit from a specific year).
  • Fair. Reworded a bit, hope it's not tooooo bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• "An Ipswich representative XI": this was not an Ipswich Town team then? Should it be in the Portman Road article or here?
  • Yeah, that's been mentioned before. I'll axe the sentence as I've got evidence either way... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Despite invitations to join both the Southern League and the Norfolk and Suffolk League during the 1890s, it was not until the 1899–1900 season that Ipswich finally accepted one of the offers. The club finished fourth in their inaugural season in the Norfolk and Suffolk League. Nobody invited them to join both leagues. But were the invitations in 1888, or 1881? It makes a big difference to the element of "finally". We have already established that the club's inaugural season was in 1878-79. Having received invitations to join from both the Southern League and the Norfolk and Suffolk League, Ipswich joined the latter in the 1899–1900 season, finishing fourth in their first league season.
  • Okay, agreed! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Indifferent seasons are probably not worth commenting on: In 1907, Ipswich Town became a founder member of the SAL.
  • Okay, just didn't want acres of history (all be them mediocre) to go unmentioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Most readers will be aware that 1921-22 is the season after 1920-21.
  • You think?! A lot of readers need that kind of help!! But seriously... removed... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Captain John Murray Cobbold: is there a reason for giving such a florid rendition of this name? John Cobbold, club president (not capitalised) and grandson (or whatever relation he was, if known) of the first president (if the club was dynastic in these early years, that might be worth a mention).
  • Removed Captain but left Murray as I'm pretty sure there was more than one John Cobbold... but I'm happy to stand corrected. I need to do some work on the history of the Cobbold family methinks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• A meeting is not a place: "at which", not "where".
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Tunbidge Wells Rangers can be linked.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Avoid using "after" twice in rapid succession: "following the death..."
  • Yeah, good point. Modified. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• How was Mr Duncan generally known? There is contradiction between this article and the title of his article. "Around 3 months" is not good encyclopaedic language: if the length of the inter-regnum is unknown, can we not simply say that Duncan followed O'Brien?
  • Yep, good call. Scott Duncan was it. Also I've added the date of his appointment so hopefully that should be a little more encylopaedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• That graphic of the league positions, at the scale it is seen on this page, is misleading: it says that it shows positions from 1939, and shows dips immediately at the start: it looks as though league position was volatile in the years immediately following 1939.
  • Okay, perhaps you could clarify this - are you concerned about the War years here? The graph maps exactly the league finishes so is accurate in that respect - I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That's the problem: at full scale, it can be seen that 1939 is followed by 1946, but at the size on the article one can only assume that the drop that immediately follows 1939 is in 1940 and '41. If no-one else objects though, you could always put it down to my making assumptions. Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      •  Doing... No, that's a fair point. I can easily make a more appropriate graph to skip over the War years. I'll have a fiddle with Excel and see what I can generate. Otherwise perhaps it'd be better to ditch the graph from that section altogether. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That'll do me for now: I'll try my fine toothed comb approach on 1955-2008 later if it it would be welcome. Can I just leave you with one further issue: sixteen times, including 3 times in 4 lines at the beginning of the Ramsey section, time is attributed with the ability to see. In most genres of writing, I would have no objection, but I question its suitability in encyclopaedic text. Kevin McE (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks, and yes, your fine-toothed comb on the second half of the article would be most welcome. As for time being capable of seeing then yes, I know I'm guilty of this. I'll try to revise it a bit and, if you have the time and inclination, hopefully you can let me know how I've done. Thanks for your deliberation and careful eye. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comments from Kevin McE

Here we go again:

• the club won the Division Three (South) title for the second time in its history and saw the emergence of local Suffolk striker Ted Phillips: the phrase in its history and the word Suffolk are redundant. Kevin McE (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Removed redundancy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The 1960-61 season did not win promotion, and I'm not sure bout that yet: Ipswich had their most successful season to that point in 1960-61, winning the Second ...
  • Yet gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Were they the first team/first team for many years, to win the championship the year after promotion? Probably worth a mention if known. But champions without a capital C.
  • Cap C gone, I found a page a while ago about consecutive league titles but I'm struggling to find it now - I know it's pretty rare (someone once accused Ipswich of being the only club to do it, not true)... I'll keep looking. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Would it be more apprpriate to link to Football in Malta rather than to the country?
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• "European adventure", "slipped down" : journalese?
  • Rephrased, rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If Ramsey left in April, it seems less than justified to imply that his departure was the reason for the poor season in defence of the title.
  • That's just one way of reading that. I meant "after" as in temporal not as in causal. But I'll rephrase to remove any potential confusion.
• This might be anathema to you, but is Ramsey's knighthood part of Ipswich's history?
  • No, absolutely right, trivia really, but that's why it's good to have non-ITFC eyes looking at this. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If you do retain the knighthood, then the whole citation "for services to football" should be in quote marks: it looks almost sarcastic otherwise.
  • Sentence removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comma needed after the word Fulham in the second Robson sentence, and another one after the score of the Norwich match
  • Commas added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The 1973-74 UEFA Cup (without the word season).
  • Removed season. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Does the Mick Mills quote shed any light on the match in question? I would suggest not.
  • Only to imply Mills was a cheeky sod who thought little Ipswich could go to Euro giants Real Madrid and have no fear.
• I'd be inclined to make the FA Cup win the focus of the 1977-78 season, rather than a "nonetheless" follow-on.
  • I've reworded it to start with cup, mid section on low league and end on still qualifying for Europe. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Typos in noteworthy (notweorthy) and a couple of lines later in season (seaon)
  • Typos fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• What was the score against St Etienne? "comprehensive" is a judgement on the result, not the result.
  • Score added. Shame it can't emphasise how comprehensive that really was...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The reader is being invited to guess that the Alkmaarderhout is the name of the Alkmaar ground.
  • Clarify it's Alkmaar's X ground. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• "falling at the first hurdle": a journalistic cliché?
  • "failing in the first round " less clichéd?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• League position is not attained "despite" European performances, unless you can argue that there is some causal link in normal circumstances.
  • Remove causality best I can. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Reference is made to Robson's statue in the text, but not to Ramsey's.
  • Yes, I'll address that...
    • Done.. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Portman Road has already been referred to several times: explanation unnecessary here.
  • Fair point. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Two more Cobbolds: that sort of running link will raise questions in the reader's mind that are not answered.
  •  Doing... Again, I need to find out who's who in the Cobbold clan. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Bobby Ferguson's spell did many things, but evolving was not among them.
  • Reprhased.
• There is no evident reason why John Wark's return was noteworthy: it is stated that he later became caretaker manager(well, the text actually makes it look like he became janitor), but this is not mentioned in the relevant chronological point in the later sections.
  • Specific mention of Wark in the text removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• "In" January, not the colloquial ( and frankly, totally invalid semantically) "come" January.
  • Ooh, touched a nerve?! Okay, okay, in January. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• It was disappointing only for Ipswich fans (and maybe those of Palace, Forest and Middlesborough) that they finished 16th in 1993.
  • Yep, abjectly POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• ...9–0 defeat at Manchester United in early March, it is the heaviest ever defeat experienced by any team in a Premiership match.: lots of redundant words there: ...9–0 defeat at Manchester United in March, the biggest margin in a Premiership match.: humiliating is a judgement (albeit widely shared).
  • Reworded but kept "humiliating" and cited BBC on such a claim (as it really was widely shared). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Town were quiet on the transfer market, making their only major signing...:What would comprise noisiness? Town (it has not been explained anywhere that this was/is their nickname) made only one major signing...
  • Yep, Ipswich instead of Town, revamped to remove "quiet". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm unclear about the relevance of last day results in May 2001. If it is said that they still had a chance of Champ League qualification with 4 games left, does that mean they were out of contention with three games left? If so, why should their result, or Liverpool's, on the last day be of any importance?
  • Reworded. You're right, when I read it again it made little sense to me! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry: too tired to type any more without the danger of slipping into meaninglessness. Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]