Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. seasons/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 not promoted by Giants2008 19:06, 8 January 2012 [1].
List of Arsenal F.C. seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. seasons/archive1
- Featured list candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. seasons/archive2
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* This list is nowhere near featured standard, to inline citations, the two web based general references are dead. On references alone it is nowhere near featured standard, and that is without mentioning the table which is not compliant with WP:ACCESS, and should be sortable.
NapHit (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Few more:
|
- There are still links that need dismbiguating, clink on disamb links in the toolbox on the right to fix these. Corrected
- I'm going to wait until Struway's comments are dealt with until I vote, as I am also concerned about the sourcing. NapHit (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – Noting that the list looks like it's had work since the reviews above...
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing I saw while checking changes: Ref 23 shouldn't have all caps in the title, even if they appear that way on the website. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — Corrected, Lemonade51 (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment - I think you may have mis-typed the codes for the colours applied to some of the cells. Currently lots of them are black, rendering the text in the cell completely unreadable.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that #DDD used for runners-up? If so, I have corrected it. Thanks. — Lemonade51 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* Image caption shouldn't have a full stop (MOS:CAPTION) Corrected.
Couple of minor things: the club's previous names shouldn't be italicised (MOS:ITALIC),
|
Oppose. Lot of minor stuff, but serious concerns over the sourcing.
- Will leave reviewing the quality of the lead to others.
- I still can't see a convincing source for the contents of the table. You appear to be saying that a book published in 2000 is the source for the entire contents of a table that goes up to 2011. You're not really claiming that, surely.....
- Amended to the recent edition, available as of 3 October 2011.
- I realise the content of the list was there before you started editing it, and you can't be expected to guess where the original authors got the data from. But presumably you checked the content yourself before submitting the list here, so you do know where the facts can be verified. The statistical section at the back of the 2011 illustrated history only starts listing individual appearances and goals by season after the First World War. Whereabouts does it give the pre-WWI top goalscorers?
- Here, which I have cited now.
- Congratulations on finally coming up with a set of sources which actually do verify the contents of the table. Unfortunately, the obvious follow-up question is what makes Andy Kelly's site a reliable source? Personally, I'd lean towards its reliability by virtue of Mr Kelly being an expert in the field of Arsenal history, but not sure I could satisfactorily demonstrate it.
- He does have a comprehensive knowledge of the club; he is a memeber of the 'Arsenal History Society' and his official website is reguarly updated.
- In addition, the "125 years of Arsenal history" sections on Arsenal's website include and appear to accept large elements of Kelly's and colleague Tony Attwood's research which to some extent contradict the "established" version of the club's history: see e.g. 1886–1891 and 1891–1896. Struway2 (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He does have a comprehensive knowledge of the club; he is a memeber of the 'Arsenal History Society' and his official website is reguarly updated.
- Congratulations on finally coming up with a set of sources which actually do verify the contents of the table. Unfortunately, the obvious follow-up question is what makes Andy Kelly's site a reliable source? Personally, I'd lean towards its reliability by virtue of Mr Kelly being an expert in the field of Arsenal history, but not sure I could satisfactorily demonstrate it.
- Here, which I have cited now.
- I realise the content of the list was there before you started editing it, and you can't be expected to guess where the original authors got the data from. But presumably you checked the content yourself before submitting the list here, so you do know where the facts can be verified. The statistical section at the back of the 2011 illustrated history only starts listing individual appearances and goals by season after the First World War. Whereabouts does it give the pre-WWI top goalscorers?
- Amended to the recent edition, available as of 3 October 2011.
That's enough for now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your thorough feedback! —Lemonade51 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. Please accept my apologies for taking so long in returning to this review. I'd got out of the habit of reviewing here and forgot all about it.... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your thorough feedback! —Lemonade51 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to the nominator: please do not strike through the comments of reviewers by yourself. Let them make the decision as to whether or not comments have been fully resolved. If there's an area that needs more work, the strikes will obscure that, making things inconvenient for everyone. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.