Has the potential to be a featured article (or good article at least). Statistics and such are fine, but sections regarding things like history (as in we have none). could do with a review. Archibald99 15:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately the article requires major work before it is ready for FA or GA status. I think the main issue with the article is that it is written to give bits of information a fan of Scottish football might want to see, rather than a general reader. Put yourself in the place of someone who has no knowledge of Rangers, or even football. Would the article give them a decent general understanding of the subject? Look at existing football team FAs for ideas on how to do this.
A few suggestions:
- I disagree on statistics - they take up far to much of the article, which contains very little prose. Get rid of the UEFA ranking section, it adds little knowledge for the reader, the same goes for the list of minor club officials. The reserve/ youth team listing is unneccessary.
- Why are the "notable players" on the list notable?
- History - suffers from acute Recentism. The History section should be a concise version of History of Rangers F.C., see the guidelines for summary style.
- Good to see that the article doesn't duck away from the issue of sectarianism, but the section currently says in effect "Sectarianism exists in Scotland. In the 1800s Rangers started as Protestants, Celtic as Catholics. Both clubs recently admitted sectarianism is a problem". Make it clear why it is a problem, and how it has come to be regarded as such. Bear in mind that with a such a controversial subject, nearly every sentence requires a citation.
- No mention of Rangers having been Scottish champions more times than any other club in the lead?
- Stadium section - Where did Rangers play before Ibrox? The lead says Ibrox is in south-west Glasgow, include this information here too. What do the front and rear bits mean? No mention of either Ibrox disaster?
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Lead should summarise the clubs achievements - they are one of the most successful clubs in Scotland, so a count trophies won etc. would be informative.
- Detailed discussion of the name could go in its own section.
- Ugh, the history section is hideously biased to the present day. Trim the "Recent History" down to a single para, slinging the rest out to History of Rangers F.C. Another 4-6 paragraphs should be added dealing with the club's history before 2006.
- The section on sectarianism starts strangely and reads like a school textbook; we don't need a dictionary definition as the first sentence. The whole section is written arse-backwards - it should explain the clubs' backgrounds and then the consequences. It needs a rewrite. Though I don't want to get embroiled in this too much, a suggested structure would be:
- Rangers' most distinct rivalry is with Celtic FC, the other major football club based in Glasgow; the two clubs are collectively known as the Old Firm. Rangers' traditional support has largely come from the Protestant community, while Celtic's has come from the Roman Catholic community. Consequently, the rivalry between the two clubs has often been characterised along sectarian lines. Both Rangers and Celtic now accept that they have a problem with sectarianism, and both admit that a proportion of their supporters have been, and continue to be, guilty of perpetuating partisan, sectarian beliefs as well as cultural intolerance.
- Further explanation of the sectarian situation should follow, especially on how it is expressed by the club's supporters (flags, songs etc.) - the article should not assume what the song Billy Boys is about. The 2006 case could be abridged slightly, and other past disciplinary cases (if any) should also be mentioned. Needless to say, citations for every assertion in the whole section are needed.
- Stadium section - where did Rangers play between 1873 and 1899? Also things such as who designed Ibrox, the two disasters there, any major reconstruction work that went on, suitably summarised in 2-3 paras.
- Notable players needs an objective and verifiable criterion for inclusion. It could maybe be merged with the 'Greatest team' detailed below.
- List of managers could do with P/W/D/L stats.
- Remove the reserve squad - the articles linked to from there should also be checked to see if they satisfy WP:BIO.
- List of every last member of the staff should be trimmed - we don't need to know who the kit man is. Ideally I would have nothing there, but at the very most, only coaching staff associated with the first team should be included.
- The trivia bulletpoints in the Honours should be merged into a main History section
- Use of tables, as it stands, in the Honours section is sinfully ugly.
- Records section could be split off into a separate article.
- UEFA Ranking can be removed - WP:NOT a news service.
That'll do for a start. As so much rewritin is required I would suggest a second Peer Review once the article is redone, to stand a decent chance of GA/FA status. Qwghlm 15:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I feel there is no reason to duplicate comments here, so I'll just write that I agree with the reviews of Oldelpaso and Qwghlm. In short; more prose, less stats. – Elisson • T • C • 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]