Wikipedia:Peer review/List of former Football League clubs/archive1

List of former Football League clubs

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've reworked this list to fit the style of List of former Scottish Football League clubs, which has gained WP:FL status. I have the same aim for this article, and with this peer review I'd like to add any improvements or fix any mistakes to the article that will help it achieve FL status. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to say other than:

"clubs lost their league status by failing to gain re-election after finishing last in the bottom division" - incorrect, the bottom four teams had to apply and any one of them could be voted out in favour of a new club.

Done Corrected. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think describing Wimbledon as simply "defunct", without at least some form of qualifier as to their theoretical continued existence as MK Dons is contoversial and potentially inaccurate..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Clarified. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing - I would consider re-writing the photo caption, as currently there is no obvious connection being made between the goal depicted and Boston losing their league status - a non-footy expert would be completely baffled..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Rewritten. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment from myself. I think the lead will have to be re-written. I think the featured list criteria have changed to move away from such starts as "This is a list of former member clubs of the Football League, detailing all the clubs to have played in the league since its formation but which are no longer in membership." I'd give The Rambling Man a shout to get some guidance on the best way to re-write it. Peanut4 (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at rewording the lead and will contract The Rambling Man to see what he thinks. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- "The Football League is a football league comprised of professional football clubs" - a better way of introducing the list than "This is a list..." but...
  - "The ... League... is a ... league" reads a little repetitive.
  - Reinforce "association" football.
  - "comprised of" -> "comprising"
    - Done Intoductory sentence reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "the existing single division" not sure about the need for "single" here.
  - Done "Single" removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "1915 to 1919 and after two seasons" - I don't think the clause after the "and" is necessarily logically related and makes this read a little awkwardly. Also, "after two seasons" - which two seasons? I assume you mean after 1919-20 and 1920-21, but it's not 100% clear to me.
  - Done Rewritten. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "before it being regionalised" - "before being regionalised" or "before it was regionalised".
  - Done Removed "it". Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The creation of the Premier League ..." - probably worth noting that the old First Division was rebranded as the Premier League.
  - Done Added. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, this is wrong. The Premier League was not simply the first division re-branded, it was a complete breakaway. The Football League lost a division, but retained a "first division". The previous wording was more accurate and more appropriate. - fchd (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done I've written this is in a way I think is more correct. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Learn something new every day! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Since 1987, clubs finishing at the foot of the Football League's bottom division have been relegated..." is this 100% the case? Haven't clubs in the Conference got to meet some minimum entry requirements before they're allowed to be promoted? And is it "Since 1987, the club finishing at the ..." rather than a nebulous number of "clubs"?
  - Done I've given this bit a good cleaning up. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Premiership clubs, while former members, aren't as significant as the others so I'd put them second.
  - Done Moved. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've moved it back to before, as with "Other" clubs coming first it's a bit silly... Mattythewhite (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how the soccerbase links substantiate the years of formation and exit from the Football League for the prem clubs. I think you need something more explicit.
  - Their respective pages on Soccerbase include links to tables that show their first and final seasons in the Football Leage. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I don't think that's explicit enough - I've got to go searching for the evidence... The Rambling Man (talk)
      - Done I've used FCHD as a source for them instead. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope that lot helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - now that you've moved the Premier League clubs further down, the heading "Other former member clubs" makes no sense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course... moved it back to before, think that's the best way to deal with it. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]