Talk:Hull City A.F.C./GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• There are at least five dead links.[1]
  • Fixed the first two -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ........and the third -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Couldn't find a replacement for the fourth link so removed it, the info it cited was quite trivial -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • replaced the last one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A few sections are written in a tabloid style, and display a clear pov, listed below.
  • All specific points below have been addressed and I've given the whole article a quick copy-edit to remove any suggestions of POV -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

• "Hull notched up an impressive start ...". Impressive to whom?
  • POV removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "This proved difficult because the city was then dominated by respectable rugby league teams such as Hull FC and Hull KR and their dedicated fans, and the soccer supporters were drunks." What does "respectable" mean in this context? All the soccer fans were drunks, or were they just considered to be drunks? By whom? None of this is helped by the fact that the link in the supporting citation had gone dead.
  • Clearly bollocks and has been removed, also link has been fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-20th century

• There's a substantial gap between the last info in the preceeding History section, which ended in 1910, and this one, which picks the story up in 1930. Did nothing happen in those 20 years?
  • Expanded a bit, but on the whole no, nothing of any great import seems to have happened in that period, just a lot of unremarkable mid-table finishes...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "An even larger crowd of 55,019 watched the FA Cup 6th round tie with Manchester United, which remains the club's largest ever attendance as of 2009". This information about the largest crowd is repeated three times throughout the article. Once is surely enough.
  • Now only mentioned once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The low ebb saw the arrival of unlikely looking saviours in the form of a chairman (Don Robinson) and manager (Colin Appleton) from the footballing outpost of Scarborough F.C." That's the kind of thing I'd expect to see in the Daily Sport, not an encyclopedia article. "Low ebb"? "Unlikely looking saviours"? "Footballing outpost"?
  • Re-written -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Hull City, along with Grimsby Town were the only two professional clubs with official permission to play league football on Christmas Day ...". Can you have "unofficial permission"?
  • Removed, source looks ropey and it just seems like a trivia factoid to me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• " ... because of the demands of the fish trade". What demands of the fish trade?
  • Removed along with the above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colours and crest

• "The early 1990s featured two "tiger skin" designs, which have since featured in a number of "worst ever football kit" articles." The link supporting this interesting claim appears to be brokken.
  • Fixed all dud links in this section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stadia

• The third paragraph begins: "Hull decided to continue with the development of the stadium at Boothferry Road ...", which jars because the previous paragraph ended with the story at 1945. We've not even been told at that point that Hull had stopped development of Boothferry Road.
  • Re-wrote in a more coherent fashion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries

• The first paragraph needs to be cited.
  • Removed the uncited bits altogether -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--

]

Closing review

Great work Chris, thanks for dealing with this so promptly and cheerfully. The article's back up to scratch now as far as I'm concerned, a good model for others to follow. --

]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.