Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 21, 2016

Sorry for the delays, I'm on this now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Art was saying that it was supposed to have been done already, he's just doing his job. I'm just happy you want to work on these at all, I don't have a timetable in mind. - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<scratches head> I don't know who Art is and I've not seen his/her message! I was belatedly responding to a request for help at my user talk :-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WT:TFA#Too long. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seen it now. Ta. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion

I've been trimming the Heysel material (UNDUE to focus on the single event too much in an article of this span) but something bothers me. English clubs ended up being banned for five years and Liverpool six. Hard to put that pithily and can't leave it out, as it implies they're still banned. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you have now looks fine to me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...is the soul of all wit

Does this really have to go down to 1150 characters? And does the first wikilink need to be to the article title? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first wikilink needs to link to the article title, and the wording has to have some relevance to the link. (This is a really annoying constraint in "history of" articles.) 1200 is a hard cap, and i've almost always been successful keeping it under 1175, but you can go over 1175 if you need to. If I were writing it, I woudn't put Heysel in the first sentence, I'd talk about that at the end. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to have just enough of the article title in the first link for readers to make the connection, and sometimes that's best in "history of" articles. If the first sentence says "history from '59 to '85", I think it raises a question why we would want to talk about those years. I'm thinking of something like: From 1959 to 1985, the Liverpool Football Club had some of its best years (its best years?), under managers Bill Shankly, Bob Paisley and Joe Fagan. You could add what they accomplished specifically in the first sentence, or make that the second sentence, depending on how long it is. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. How do you think I've done with it? Still need to prune more, but it's heading in the right direction. I think Heysel is still a bit overdone... It relates to one day in 25 years, albeit a horrific and very important day, but nonetheless... it's currently a fraction under 300 characters, which is fully a quarter of your hard cap. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now 250+ but still too long, methinks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

... I think. Dank? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, with some tweaks. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]