Sheffield Wednesday F.C.

Would like comments on grammar and any missing sections anyone thinks should be included or current sections that should be dropped. Already put it through automated peer review. josh (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly better than most football club articles. The historical league position graph is a nice touch, and the history section is not biased towards recent events as so often happens.

• The list of books should go in a Further reading section at the bottom, or if any given book has been used as a general reference, a references section (remaing the section with footnotes to Notes or Footnotes).
• The Supporters section could be merged with the Fanzines section. The list of famous fans should be removed, particularly as it is unreferenced. Also, no mention of the rivalry with Sheffield United?
• The list of managers could perhaps be moved to List of Sheffield Wednesday F.C. managers.
• What criteria are used for the list of former players? In particular, why is Paulo di Canio included when he only spent 2 years at the club and made only 47 apperances?
• Nothing glaringly wrong with the grammar from a quick scan. Avoid referring to the club as "SWFC".
• A couple of things which should have references:
  • Charles Clegg being known as the Napoleon of Football.
  • The football and cricket clubs splitting,
  • At the 2005 playoff final they took over 40,000 fans. The most taken by any club side.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 21:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've updated the article. I reduced the list of managers to those with more than 200 matches rather than removing it all together. There isn't any one criteria for inclusion in the players list. They generally have done something exceptional (most goals, most caps etc). Di Canio is the most expensive player that Wednesday have ever bought (he also received the longest ban of any player). josh (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a bad article, though I agree with all of Oldelpaso's points. Some additional thoughts:

• Reorder the intro - trophies & brief first, then discuss Hillsborough.
• Club is referred to in both the singular and plural - pick one and stick to it.
• If you are going to call them the Owls and SWFC during the article then mention it in the into (i.e. "also known as The Owls or SWFC")
• Bibliography should be formatted according to Template:Cite book. The authors' names in the bibliography should not be wikified unless it is likely they fulfil WP:BIO.
• Some details of the club crest would be nice - I've always wondered exactly when and why Wednesday picked the modern owl graphic in their crest.
• Records section should be turned to prose.
• Forums should not be linked to in external links, as per WP:EL.
• Though this is not directly linked to the article itself, the articles Sheffield Wednesday F.C. staff and Sheffield Wednesday F.C. squad are of dubious merit (the first details non-notable people, the second is duplicate information) and are possible candidates for deletion. Qwghlm 00:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I've edited the article over the past days and it should satisfy your points. I haven't found any information on why the current crest was chossen so I'll do some digging for that. As for the two articles you mentioned. They were created by dan1980 (talk · contribs) so I'll have a word with him about them but I think they could possibly be improved. The staff article would serve better as a historical record of former managers and chairman along with a reduced amount of current staff. Both articles could be improved by adding information such as dates joined and match records for the squad article. josh (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]