Wikipedia:Peer review/Record home attendances of English football clubs/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm looking at taking this list to WP:FLC, but would like to iron out any creases and find out if anything else needs doing first. Comments on whether the lead is sufficient would be particularly welcome. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)
[edit]- Lead might want some more expanding, but I wouldn't say it's essential.
- "...football clubs It lists..." - full stop needed.
- Don't see the need for "F.C." on every club.
- I think the references would be better placed in a "Notes" column at the end.
- Perhaps make it sortable?
- I'd be tempted to put the competitions in a seperate column.
- Teams in the "Match" column need wikilinking, and so do the dates.
All I can see. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick comment from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs) before my battery runs out
[edit]Ref 77 (Gillingham) is missing full book info ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree with everything Mattythewhite says about the table itself.
- Perhaps find an appropriate image
- Add wikilinks to notes 3 and 10
- I think cup rounds should be first, second, etc rather than 1st, 2nd. Especially since the divisions are first, second, etc.
Think that's it. Peanut4 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
[edit]- I think the date column should be sortable as well.
- Why pick out Accrington Stanley in the lead?
- Ref one should use an en-dash for page separator.
- Molineux stadium should be Stadium.
- The Baseball Ground should just be Baseball Ground.
That's about it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- That should be everything above done, with the exception of putting the refs in a separate column, which is a lot of cutting and pasting for only marginal benefit, and the date sorting, which I can't work out how to do without sorting wrongly. The image isn't a great one, but we lack free images from the right era for most grounds. Accrington Stanley are mentioned in the lead to complete the three clubs whose record did not occur at their usual home ground. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've done the first date, hopefully you can see what to do and complete the rest of the column? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- That should be everything above done, with the exception of putting the refs in a separate column, which is a lot of cutting and pasting for only marginal benefit, and the date sorting, which I can't work out how to do without sorting wrongly. The image isn't a great one, but we lack free images from the right era for most grounds. Accrington Stanley are mentioned in the lead to complete the three clubs whose record did not occur at their usual home ground. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Need some sort of as-of date to qualify the 92 English clubs.
- Could link "terraced" (to Terrace (stadium)) for our non-Brit-Eng readers.
- The Old Trafford war damage probably needs citing, as does Arsenal playing CL games at Wembley.
- Consider giving the table a section header.
- Rank column would look better centred.
- Would suggest moving the references to their own column. The attendance figures would be clearer if the references weren't in with them, and could then be centred (or aligned on the comma), which they probably should be.
- Also, the attendances column doesn't sort properly (possibly because the references being in with the numbers stop them being treated as numeric).
- Consider making Opposition column sortable (if only to make it easy to see if record crowds really do occur against the big clubs).
- Row 48 Doncaster Third Div North needs linking.
- Row 52 Wrexham article is Wrexham F.C., not A.F.C., though it probably was when the table was first created. Similarly in the wording of the reference.
- Row 58 Swindon FA Cup thirrd round has too many rr's ;-)
- Row 70 Northampton has F.C. after clubname.
- Ref #1 could have the page numbers within the cite-book template.
- Ref #2 should use cite-web for consistency.
- Ref #9 Arsenal needs an access date.
- Ref #32/41 Fulham/West Ham are technically The Observer rather than the Guardian, and should have the date parameter completed.
- Ref #81 Colchester should have date and author completed.
- In general, the cite templates need to distinguish properly between what goes in the work and publisher parameters. Tottenham Hotspur official website is quite correctly a work, but BBC or The FA are publishers and should be entered in the publisher parameter.
I know it's all a bit picky, but better now before it goes to FLC. hope some of it helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Almost all done, but I don't see the benefit of going through work/publisher when the only difference it makes to the output is whether it is italicised or not. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)