Wikipedia:Peer review/Ten-pin bowling/archive1

Ten-pin bowling[edit]

This article failed an admittedly premature FAC. User:Fjorn, myself, and others have worked hard to expand it since then. The purpose of this peer review is to get ideas and imput on how to get the article over the last hurdles needed to become featured. In particular, please look over the play and scoring sections, as they seem a bit clunky right now. I'm also not sure if some of the images are properly tagged. Anything else is, of course, also very welcome. Thank you! --Danaman5 03:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to rid the article of red links by removing the links or creating stubs (at least) for the articles.

MyNam e IsNotBob 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I have removed the red links for now. I suspect that some of them may exist and were linked incorrectly, or should be created as stubs. As they are discovered or created, I will re-add them. --Danaman5 06:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: Generally, do not put links in the bolded article title (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). I realize the word bowling isn't used again in the first paragraph, so maybe you can slightly modify the beginning of the second to read: "Since being brought to the United States from Europe, bowling has...", which I think actually sounds better because according to your history it was bowling in general that was brought from Europe, not 10-pin specifically. --NormanEinstein 18:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have implemented your changes in the lead. --Danaman5 20:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quick. Here's a few other things to think about. ;-) I'd kill the Trivia section and merge the salient info into the appropriate sections in the main body of the article. For instance, the part about the popularity of bowling could be listed in the most recent History section. The See also section is pretty huge with that list of famous bowlers. You might consider spinning that off into a "List of famous Ten-pin bowlers", then that list can get as big as needed. If there are one or two really important people that helped develop the game keep them listed here. I'd also remove bowling ball, bowling pin, and pinsetter from the See alsos because they should already be wikilinked in the body. (Bowling ball and bowling pin actually aren't wikilinked anywhere, so maybe link the first occurrence of them in the opening paragraph.) Personally, I'm not a fan of lists of quotes in articles and I think they should be integrated into the text or not used at all. Those quotes seem to be more for flavour than anything else, so maybe remove them (or move to the talk page for safe keeping if you decide to make a list of quotes article ;-) --NormanEinstein 21:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I have wikilinked bowling ball and bowling pin in the lead as you mentioned. The other changes are more major, and I do not feel comfortable doing them unilaterally, especially since the quotes section was just recently added. I have brought them up on the talk page, however, and most if not all should be implemented shortly. --Danaman5 03:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with making the list of famous bowlers a separate page. Budgiekiller 11:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of your suggestions have now been implemented. Thank you for your attention to this article. --Danaman5 03:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of good information here. I have made a number of stylistic changes, but I do think the article needs a lot of rewriting: there is much awkward language; paragraphs that list series of facts without any obvious connection between them; use of "this" and "it" when specificity is required; historical tidbits without providing context, etc. To illustrate, analyzing the text under the first section heading, ==Origins==:

First ¶: The "first written record"—what record? The following two sentences have no segue, and list facts without context; "In Germany the game of Kegal (Kegelspiel) expanded." It's a non sequitur. What is Kegal? is it a bowling-like game? We are eventually told at the end of the paragraph that it is a nine pin game, but it's too late, and its introduction is not connected at all to the preceding sentence. The next stand alone paragraph tells us—still under the Origins section mind you—that kegal is now a major modern sporting company along with Brunswick and AMC. We just got abruptly uprooted from history of the sport from hundreds of years ago to a present day parenthetical aside about modern sports distributors set off in its own paragraph. This is followed in the next paragraph by the introduction of the sport to America during colonial times. The shift is incongruous. The next paragraph's first sentence in full is: "Ninepin bowling was introduced to America from Europe during the colonial era, similar to the game of skittles." Similar to what in the game of Skittles? the way it was introduced via Europe to the US? Or is bowling similar to Skittles? What is trying to be said? --Fuhghettaboutit 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]