Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cardiff City F.C. league record by opponent/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Cardiff City F.C. league record by opponent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have rebuilt the page from scratch to convert the original article into a league only record inline with the standard layout for club result pages and I believe it now meets the FL criteria. Kosack (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on style and comprehensiveness. Minor quibbles:
- "They achieved their highest ever position during the 1923–24 season, finishing in second place of the First Division, losing the league title on goal average to Huddersfield Town," could be tightened. Not a big fan of the -ing repetition.
- You need to add 'Category:English football club league records by opponent' at the bottom
- The reliability of Soccerbase is questionable. Some users have reported missing data, myself included. Best add another site in case.
- Ref 1 needs date.
- Could add alt text for image. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lemonade51: Thanks for the review, I've made all of the changes above bar one. I'm probably opening the age old can of worms but Cardiff are a Welsh team playing in the English leagues not an English team as the category seems to suggest. Kosack (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Category:Association football league records by opponent' would suffice. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Kosack (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Category:Association football league records by opponent' would suffice. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
- "..but lost the league title on goal average.." – Explain, either with a note or a wikilink what "goal average" is.
- "..in the first tier.." – "top tier" might work better; first tier is ambiguous, and could apply equally to the highest, or lowest, tier.
- "..against Stockport County.[5] they met.." – Full stop, but not capital letter.
- What makes 11vs11.com a reliable source?
- What makes Football Club History Database a reliable source?
- Not that I'm overly fussed, but the MK Dons reference doesn't cover the stated fact that they "renounced all claims to Wimbledon's history in 2007".
Overall, a good piece of work, with just minor quibbles really. Harrias talk 16:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias: Thanks for the review, I've amended all of the grammatical mistakes and added an extra reference for the Wimbledon note. As for the two refs, 11vs11 is the official website of the Association of Football Statisticians and, although I'm unaware of any publisher other than the author, the Football Club History Database is widely considered a reliable source at WP:FOOTBALL and has been used in other featured lists such as List of York City F.C. players and has a template setup to include its use on Wikipedia at Template:Fchd. Kosack (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice work, no more issues from me. Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ruth Lyttle Satter Prize in Mathematics/archive1? Harrias talk 22:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Having made a couple fixes to a reference added in response to one of my comments, I think this meets FL standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.