Wikipedia:Peer review/Margate F.C. seasons/archive1

Margate F.C. seasons

Check it out - all created in a single edit, and then put up for PR two minutes later!!!!!

You may recognise this format from such existing FLs as Gillingham F.C. seasons and Ipswich Town F.C. seasons. Please let me know if there's anything I need to do (other than create articles on the remaing 10 redlinked players) before this one goes to FLC too......

Thanks,

ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just wondering, but do you reckon this list would pass the FLC criteria? I mean, it's a good quality article, and follows the model of most other seasons articles that have reached FL status, but half of the top scorers aren't wikilinked, and a lot of the ones that are linked are redlinks. – Pee Jay 14:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ones which are redlinked I plan to create article on in the next 72 hours or so as per my comment set out at the top of this page. The others don't meet WP:BIO as they never played in the Football League, so will never have an article to wikilink to. I see no reason why this should impact on a FL nomination - the featured article guidelines don't state that people's names can only be mentioned if they have their own WP article...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only asked because I faced a similar objection when I first put Manchester United F.C. seasons up for FL status, except in that case it was about links to individual seasons, rather than players (though I'm sure I would have been confronted about that too if the top scorers hadn't been linked to). The person who raised the objection that time used Featured List criterion 1.a)1.

“

the list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria

”

Still, I'm sure you won't hit this obstacle. – Pee Jay 14:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the only way that criterion could be used to object in the context of an article like this would be if the person was claiming that all "XXXX F.C. seasons" articles were merely lists of top scorers, which simply isn't the case. Anyway, like you say, we'll see how it goes if I do put it up....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look and that criterion's only an example of one type of FL anyway..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A single edit? Conveniently ignoring the 293 in your sandbox before copying it across ;-)

Lead. Their stay at this level saw the team forced to groundshare with other clubs. Might be better to just say them rather than the team. Also, you may want to split that sentence, and possibly say why they were expelled from the Conference (link to footnote already used in table).
We've disagreed before about linking to yyyy in football (soccer). I still wouldn't.
List. As to blacklinks, I'd have thought WP:WIAFL Criterion 1.a.3 "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles" was satisfied beautifully.
It's a pity the Amateur Cup/Trophy heading forces that column so wide.
Do you really need to have the Other competition entries in small? Using normal or small print makes no difference to the line height, and having just tried one of the wider ones (1952-53) in normal size, there's only a slight increase in width beyond that forced by the column heading and it became much clearer to read (on a smallish screen at resolution 1024x768).
Notes. Other than where shown, details of Margate's performances in other competitions from 1989 onwards are not available. Why?
In general, I like your informative footnotes, they're an important part of this sort of article/list.

Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than where shown, details of Margate's performances in other competitions from 1989 onwards are not available. Why?

Because the source I used that gives full details of Margate's participation in all the "other" comps (www.margatefchistory.co.uk) only currently gives that level of detail up to 1989. I've spoken to the webmaster and he says he does plan on bringing it up to date in the future, but I don't get the impression it's on his "very urgent" list..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'll address your other points at lunchtime ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed that wonky sentence in the lead, re-sized all the small text, and removed all the XXXX in football links (especially as I hadn't even consistently used them!!!). I can't see that there's much that can be done about the Amateur Cup/Trophy column....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you write up to Brian Barwick and get it renamed something short and snappy like FA AmCup? Seriously, it does look better (to me) with the normal-size text, thanks. Struway2 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey Chris, good work as usual, a few banal comments...

Couple of statements in the lead which I think ought to be referenced really, namely...
- "...the club was forced to resign on financial grounds and return to the Kent League."
- "... drawn-out and problematic redevelopment work at their Hartsdown Park ground, which led to the club being expelled from the Conference National in 2004 for failing to meet the division's stadium requirements."
  - Those statements are sourced from the "history of Margate" page listed at the bottom, are specific inline citations needed? Wouldn't it look a bit odd with just those two facts having inline citations out of the whole article?
    - I'm not too bothered. The problem comes from providing verifiability to provided sources which are books. I'll leave it for now, we'll see if anyone makes a fuss at FLC! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm a tad confused - no books were used as sources for this article.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Gah. I'm a tad tired. Ignore me. I'll wind my neck in. BY all means ignore that and, as I said, we'll see what's mentioned at FLC! Sorry for being a toolkit...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not keen on the two consecutive uses of "premier" when describing FA Trophy/Cup.
- Done
Any reason for no matches in the 23/24 and 28/29 seasons (and the other couple)? Probably worth explaining if possible.
- Done
Not really affecting this article but was surprised Billy Mays' article didn't mention his Margate career, particularly with that 58 goal haul in 32/33!
- I'll add that in at some point, I just threw a stub together for him so as to remove the redlink from this article.....
  - Actually I've just double-checked and I miscounted - he actually scored 60, including one match where he scored 6, two 5s, five 3s and seven 2s. I think most clubs these days would be happy with that sort of performance from a striker :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisTheDude (talk • contribs) 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think some teams would be happy with 60 from the whole team! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Group stage" should be "group stage" for consistency with other notes.
- Done
10, 25, 34 and 36 footnoes need full stops.
- Done

Not much more to add to a very extensive and thoroughly good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4

This is pretty damn hot for a non-league outfit. Top work. Just a few minor points to add.

The wording of this sentence, Their stay at this level saw them forced to groundshare with other clubs due to drawn-out and problematic redevelopment work at their Hartsdown Park ground, feels a bit clunky, particularly saw them forced to. I know what you mean to say, but had to read it three times. Maybe it's just me. My best suggestion would be to turn it round and say something on the lines of During their stay at this level, they were forced to groundshare with ...

- Done

I split up the column Other competitions in my list Bradford City A.F.C. seasons to avoid big yellow or silver boxes and also align progress in each competition. I'm obviously going to say this, but I think it looks tidier.

- That's quite a big job, but I will get onto it over the weekend. It's a good point

A few references need a full-stop at the end.

- Done

Other than that very good work. Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed one potential issue with this. In order for the W or RU cells to be coloured solely for the respective competitions, each competition would need to be on its own row. Now, this isn't a problem in most of the table, but for the 1936/37 season I'd need to have two rows in the league columns but three rows in the other comps column - any idea how to compose the table in such a way that one row in the FA Cup column, two rows in the league columns, and three rows in the other comps column all line up.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]