Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Ipswich Town F.C. players/archive 1

List of Ipswich Town F.C. players

I've listed this article for peer review because it's part of my on-going push to get all-thing Ipswich Town up to featured status. It's similar to a number of existing Featured Lists (such as List of Aston Villa F.C. players) so I'm sure it's not far off already. Please feel free to hurl abuse in my general direction. As always, thanks for your time and contributions. The Rambling Man 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattythewhite

Nothing much to say really. Just:

Shouldn't "0" still be given for players that haven't scored any goals?

Pretty much ready for FLC from what I can see. Mattythewhite 17:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Absolutely. I'll get on with it. Cheers! The Rambling Man 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. Hurrah!! The Rambling Man 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The club's record transfer sale is mentioned in the notes, but the club's record transfer buy isn't. Mattythewhite 15:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Matteo Sereni isn't on the list... perhaps he should be. The Rambling Man 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added Sereni... The Rambling Man 15:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodym555

Pretty much agree, not much more to be done.

In the goals column, either have 0 for all of them, use a dash, or all blank. I prefer 0 to be honest but at the moment Lewis Price has 0, others have blank.
Done. The Rambling Man 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check footnote six, see if you can spot what is wrong with it. ;)
What's wrong with Secod?! The Rambling Man 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could describe what the Ipswich Hall of Fame is. At the moment it just states that they are members, just not what it is about.
I'll think about it..! The Rambling Man 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. Very educational. The Rambling Man 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, bring on FLC. Woodym555 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struway2

Jimmy McLuckie is coloured as having won a competition but the note doesn't say what.
Fair point - it was just that he was first prof. capt. But no competition. So I'll remove. The Rambling Man 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done... The Rambling Man 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The note was fine, please put it back, it's only the colouring you needed to take out. Struway2 | Talk 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk. Silly me. Putting it back. The Rambling Man 18:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnatural capitals - positions such as Wing half, Full back, shouldn't have the second word capitalised. "major Senior competition" (in the colours key) likewise.
Should be (mainly) fixed, let me know... The Rambling Man 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all done - though Gavin Williams seems to have invented a new position... Struway2 | Talk 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeedy. Fixed, I hope! The Rambling Man 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Notes column should be left blank if there isn't a relevant note. It's not like goals, where a player either has 0 goals or 12 goals or whatever, with notes he either needs one or he doesn't. (I'd argue the same for the captaincy column, but not as forcefully.)
Interesting. As I said, I'm basing this on List of Aston Villa F.C. players so unless you're REALLY strong about it, perhaps I'll leave it? The Rambling Man 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed on blank notes. The Rambling Man 18:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not really really strong about it - but would you have put all those dashes if you weren't following the Villa layout? I just think the notes are more noticeable if they're the only thing in the column. Struway2 | Talk 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, guilty as charged. Still, they're gone... The Rambling Man 18:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could do with a note at the top For current squad, see ...
Fair point. The Rambling Man 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Link added... The Rambling Man 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of the lead is very long, perhaps split in two or restructure for clarity.
I'll check it out. The Rambling Man 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restructured. Hope it works for you. Let me know. The Rambling Man 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
much clearer. Struway2 | Talk 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish all clubs had a stats site of the quality of Pride of Anglia, it'd save some of us an awful lot of work.
Yes. Without a shadow of a doubt one of the best around. I'll let the webmaster know! The Rambling Man 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not your own work, is it? Struway2 | Talk 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. I'm a fan of ITFC and statistics, but the guy that runs that site must do it full time because it is extensive in the extreme. It's fab for this sort of thing. The Rambling Man 18:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there, IMO. Struway2 | Talk 18:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everlast1910

I think its FL standard, just wondering why players such as Pat Sharkey, Amir Karic, and Bruce Twamley are in the list? As they have played so few games Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, these guys are the ones that while not playing many times for Town, they did represent their countries while they were at Ipswich. The Rambling Man 18:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my comments at article talk, this should be clarified in the list. --Dweller 11:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Rambling Guy

Thanks to all for such comprehensive and swift comments. The Rambling Man 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave101

Looks fine for FLC in my opinion. Only thing I would suggest would be expanding the reference information a bit with accessdate, publisher etc. Dave101→talk 18:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave. Yeah, fair point. I'll get onto it. The Rambling Man 18:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autobot

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 12:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ilse@

I think two "For ... see" references are too much. Remove the first "For ... see" reference and add the list itself to the category (as *).
I think you're on your own with that one, others have explicitly asked for both. It's a mixed consensus so I'll leave it. The Rambling Man 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then consider changing the first to: "For a list of all Ipswich Town F.C. players on Wikipedia see Category:Ipswich Town F.C. players." to make it shorter. Still, you could add the article to the category mentioned above. – Ilse @ 08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first line removed, list now *cat'd... The Rambling Man 10:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
State in the lead in which period all the players, that are on the list, played (like 1899–2006).
Added to lead. The Rambling Man 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really an improvement. – Ilse @ 08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make complete sentences of "wartime matches are excluded. Substitute appearances included. Statistics correct as of September 28, 2007.".
Written as English! The Rambling Man 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use italics if dividing into paragraphs does the job.
Italics removed. The Rambling Man 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify what "significant contributions to the club's history" means. It remains rather vague whether or not players are eligible to be included in the list.
I've tidied that up a bit. The Rambling Man 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provide references for the data in the list, such as for the years. If there is one source, mention this source in the lead.
I've never seen the sources mentioned in the lead before. The Rambling Man 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references in the reference section do not point to the information in the list. I have to do research to find it. You don't need to mention the source in the lead, but I think you should clarify the sources of the information. – Ilse @ 08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references do point at the information - an A-Z of player info. The Rambling Man 09:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. But I have another problem, I took two random players, Mick Hill and Colin Viljoen, and I don't see the numbers matching this list. For Mick Hill the source mentions 74, the list 77. For Colin Viljoen 367, the list 368. Could you explain somewhere why there is a difference? – Ilse @ 09:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well for Mick Hill, that page says 63(3) league so 66 in total, and 11 playoff/cup so 77 in total - the list says 77 also. For Viljoen, you're right it's incorrect, but it should be 372 so I've corrected it. I'll recheck every one of them. Quite a lot of data so the odd mistake is likely, but unacceptable. The appearances data is explained in the lead - it's all first-class appearances plus substitute appearances. The Rambling Man 10:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do see what you mean, though, especially for the early players who took part in all manner of silly local cup competitions - I've added another note to clarify this...The Rambling Man 11:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explain what the "Ipswich Town Hall of Fame" and "inaugural members" are, or wikilink or remove them.
Well, it's difficult beyond saying it's a Hall of Fame for Ipswich players. I've explained how they were chosen. And inaugural is just English and doesn't need explanation or wikilinking in my opinion. The Rambling Man 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with it the way it is after re-reading the text. – Ilse @
Is there a reason why (only) John Wark's picture is included?
He's the only player I can find on the list with a free use image. Plus he's in the Hall of Fame so it's appropriate. The Rambling Man 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider adding a picture that really says something about the list, or that shows more players, otherwise there is an unbalanced focus on John Wark. – Ilse @ 08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there's nothing available for that. The Rambling Man 09:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think the image should be removed. – Ilse @ 09:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we'll have to agree to differ. The Rambling Man 10:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

– Ilse @ 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]