Talk:Bengaluru FC

Bengaluru FC records and staticstics

There should be a separate article about Bengaluru FC records and staticstics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya debnath wiki (talk • contribs) 11:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What type of records are you talking about? Coderzombie (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Team records such as matches played, goals , highest goalscorer in a season etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya debnath wiki (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's already included in List of Bengaluru FC seasons Coderzombie (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Archiving references

@Gog the Mild: Need in this one. Dey subrata (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bengaluru FC/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 18:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Taking this one on, review coming shortly. Kosack (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• No need to link Indian, per WP:OVERLINK.
• There are quite a few references in the lead. Generally, if information is referenced in the body, it doesn't need to be sourced in the lead.
• "Super Cup championship", is championship necessary here? A Super Cup is generally not considered a championship in my experience and would be fine listed as is.

Inception

• There are a lot of sentences that began with "it was reported" or "it was rumoured", while the odd use can be acceptable, there are far to many here to really make the prose flow.
• If you're using the same ref for the whole paragraph or long pieces of information, it's generally better to use it once at the end of what it's supporting rather than repeating it after each sentence.
• "from corporate groups. Corporate groups", a little repetitive with the repeated usage.
• "would construct new infrastructure", what infrastructure?
• "at launch event at the Bangalore Football Stadium", sentence is a little jumbled.

Ashley Westwood era (2013–2016)

• A similar issue here with sentence structure. A few uses of "it was announced" and a lot of the sentence begin with the same "On xx date" format which is a little repetitive.
• I don't think Sporting are generally known as Sporting Portugal. Might be better using the Sporting CP name as the article does.
• Bangalore Football Stadium is repeat linked here. Links should generally only appear once in the main body, per WP:OVERLINK.
• "Bengaluru scored their first official goal", as this was their first official match, there's no need to list official here as well.
• In the lead, you use the singular tense when referring to the club (its), but here the article has switched to the plural (thier). It's better to maintain consistency to avoid confusion.
• "In their first losing away game", as it's the first away game there's no need for this really.
• "winning their first trophy", can it be considered their first trophy if they won the I-League the previous year? Perhaps rephrase to cup competition or something similar.
• The second half of this paragraph appears to be unsourced?
• "the team also reached Round 16 for the AFC Cup", do you mean the round of 16 rather than round 16? Also for should be replaced by of here.
• Last paragraph is also unsourced.

Albert Roca era and transition to Indian Super League (2016–2018)

• "assistant coach Albert Roca as the head coach for two seasons", is this referring to his contract length? If so, I would rephrase to "head coach on a two-year contract".
• "became the third Indian team to qualify for the tournament's semi-finals", is being the third team to do it particularly notable?
• Pipe out the F.C. for Johor Darul Ta'zim F.C..
• "losing the game 0–1", no need to use a reverse scoreline here for the first time. It's clear from the start of the sentence that it was a defeat.
• The section header mentions a transition to the ISL, but there appears to be no mention of that. This is particularly confusing in the following section when the ISL is mentioned.
• The end of the section is unsourced.

Carles Cuadrat era (2018–2021)

• The majority of this paragraph doesn't appear to be sourced.
• "Cuadret on mutual consent" > by mutual consent.
• "poorest run" > runs.

Marco Pezzaiuoli era

• Not specific to this section, but each heading in the history section is "manager era" which is a little repetitive.

Crest and colour

• "Bengaluru FC' home livery", missing the s after FC here?
• The last sentence could probably be integrated into the paragraph, single sentence paragraphs should generally be avoided.
• Most of the kit table is unsourced.
• "with Puma, which became the club's kit sponsor", the table lists Puma as the kit manufacturer rather than sponsor?
• The second use of principal sponsor isn't needed.
• The kit evolution gallery is unsourced.

Stadium

• The Bangalore Footbal Stadium is overlinked twice in the first paragraph.

Supporters

• No need to bold West Block Blues, only the title should be bolded.
• "The players and the coach", what coach?
• "at the India vs Guam game", when was this game played?

Rivalries

• No need to link I-League again.
• Ref 53 is oddy placed, any reason it's not at the end of the sentence?
• What were the actions of the fans that caused the club to be fined?
• I'm not sure the amount of headings is necessary for the smal amount of info in this section.

Performance in AFC competitions

• Isn't this just repeating information that's already contained in the team records table?

References

• There are a few sections at the bottom which appear to be largely unsourced such as technical staff (with an outstanding citation tag), team records and some of the honours.
• The references are quite inconsistent in the way they are formatted. There are several that are only links with no publisher info. These need to be formatted so that they contain all the available information, publisher, publishing date, access date, author etc.
• Some of the sources possibly need to be checked for reliability. There's at least one that is tagged as being a primary source.

Unfortunately, I'm failing this on a first run through as I believe it falls some way short of meeting the first and second criteria. Firstly, while it's not badly written, it does need a good copyedit to improve the overall flow of the article. Right now, it reads like it's been added almost on a week-by-week basis as events happened rather than as a whole. I would recommend perhaps making a request at WP:GOCE for an experienced copyeditor to take a look for you if that helps. Secondly, there is a fair chunk of unsourced information here and an article shouldn't really be coming to GAN with outstanding citation needed tags. Overall, I think this is too much for a single GA review to be fixing, but that being said it would be worth renominating when you've addressed the points raised here. If you have any questions please feel free to drop me a message. Kosack (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)