Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [1].

West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons

edit

I am nominating this list for Featured List status as I believe it has reached the standard set by other featured football club seasons lists, as well as meeting the FLC criteria. --Jameboy (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • I would remove the brackets from the first sentence, and replace them with commas. If it's important enough to mention, it's important enough to do so without looking like an aside.
  • I would change top-flight to top division. Top flight is probably jargon.
  • Again, I'd remove the brackets around the lowest league position, and also replace Division 3 with Division Three and 7th with seventh. Probably best as "... recording their lowest ever league finish of seventh in Division Three in 1991–92."
  • Remove the brackets again around the sharing of the charity shield.
  • "The club was founded as West Bromwich Strollers in 1878 by workers from George Salter's Spring Works and turned professional in 1885." It's not exactly controversial but it made need a reference.
  • "In the 1900–01 season, the club moved to its current home ground, The Hawthorns." Ditto to the above.

Everything else looks fine. Peanut4 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've addressed everything above. Still not quite happy with the opening sentence and the self reference ("the list below") but getting there. --Jameboy (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent point and one that I agree with. However given that existing seasons FLs seem to have the key at the bottom, I'd like to have some modicum of consensus before making the change. Do we have any guideline or policy on this? What are people's thoughts? --Jameboy (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that a key should normally go above the table, but the problem is that the key on these lists is huge. The aggravation to the reader who actually wants to read the key, of having to click on Key in the table of contents and then to click on the Back button to get back, is in my view much less than the aggravation caused to the general reader, who generally doesn't, of being confronted with so much key to scroll past before they get to the table. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The key is still much smaller than the list, and helps to prep the reader for what the table contains. I'd rather scroll by the key and then read the table rather than read the table then realize that the key is at the bottom. I don't usually look at the table of contents; I just scroll and see what there actually is in the content. Gary King (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick question - how did the club come to win the league title and Charity Shield in the same season (1919-20)? Surely they would have been in the following season's Shield after winning the title.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. The match took place on 15 May 1920, which would be the end of the 1919–20 season. I can see how this would probably appear strange to those familiar with it as the "traditional curtain raiser". I'll do some digging around (as I'm not sure if this was a one-off or if it was always at the end of the season in those days) and add an explanatory footnote. --Jameboy (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, see here [2] for evidence that the shield was played at the end of the season during the early days. I have expanded the Charity Shield footnote. --Jameboy (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Please avoid starting the list with "This is a list of..." we're trying to be more imaginative and compelling now.
Really? :-P OK, I've changed it - it's better but still not brilliant. I'll give it some more thought tomorrow. I'm struggling with the self-referencing aspect somewhat. Can you clarify this for me? Can we mention the list at all, and if not, how do we introduce it without mentioning it? Are there any really good FLs that you could recommend as examples to draw inspiration from in this regard? --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caption appears to be the only place where you do year ranges by XXXX–XXXY instead of XXXX–XY. I'd be consistent.
Fixed --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In Europe, Albion" - perhaps expand a touch, maybe European competitions? Just for the non-expert.
Fixed --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aren't [23] and [24] specific references rather than footnotes?
Yeah fair point, although I'm not sure how best to separate them as I've always lumped them together before now. Should I create a footnotes section similar to that in Norwich City F.C. and then split the references into specific and general?
OK, now done. Footnotes section contains only footnotes. References section divided into General and Specific references. --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the sake of consistency, link Ipswich Town in the footnote about Kevan.
Ipswich Town don't deserve a link! Oh alright then, done. --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead. In the first sentence, perhaps link 'English' and 'European' to something helpful.
'English' now linked to Football in England. Strangely, I couldn't find a similar general article on European football to link 'European' to. --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "first team competitions", think first team should be hyphenated.
Think you're right - a very quick Google Search seemed to show the hyphen being used by the more reliable sources and no hyphen by the unofficial/fan sites, generally speaking. Fixed. --Jameboy (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't actually say explicitly that the list is supposed to include only completed seasons, which presumably is the case for stability reasons?
That is the reason, indeed. I've added a hidden comment to the bottom of the list, advising would-be editors not to add stats while the current season is still in progress. I'm thinking about the best way to phrase the lead so that this list criterion is clear. --Jameboy (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Matthews, BCFC Encyclopedia (ISBN 978-0-9539288-0-4), and Tony Jordan, the Birmingham Senior Cup admitted reserve sides from 1905-06, not 06-07. Only mentioned this in case yours was a typo, on the basis there's no reason why my Matthews reference should be more reliable than yours :)
Matthews (1987) p202 says "...in 1906-07 the Birmingham FA decreed that local clubs could field their reserve sides in the Birmingham Cup."
Matthews (1987) p205 says "In 1906-07 the Staffordshire FA decreed that reserve teams could take part [in the Staffordshire Cup]"
Possibly a typo or misprint at source? Not sure what to suggest. --Jameboy (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table. Would the goalscorer column look tidier left-aligned?
Yes it would. Have now done so. --Jameboy (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeated links of the same goalscorer. I know overlinking should be avoided in prose, but I think a long list like this is different. The reader shouldn't be expected to chase up and down looking for the single linked occurrence. Especially as you have repeatedly linked names of cup competitions.
Now that you've pointed out the discrepancy, I've actually linked less of the competitions, only repeating the links where they are relatively distant (as advised by WP:MOSLINK). I'm also looking into increasing the linking to the divisons, as this column is arguably underlinked. With the goalscorers, I think W. G. Richardson has the greatest spread, something like seven or eight rows, which is the equivalent to a decent sized paragraph, so not really much chasing up and down required. It's tricky knowing where to draw the line though, as with lists there is often a lot more repetition of linkable terms than in articles. Could almost do with a WP:MOSLINKLISTS or whatever, assuming something like that doesn't exist already. Couldn't find anything in WP:STAND about link frequency. --Jameboy (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes and references. Consider separating the footnotes from the references as done on Bradford City A.F.C. seasons, using {{ref label}} and {{note}}/{{note label}}. This also allows footnotes to be referenced without the source information getting tangled up with the note. Then you could divide the References section into general and specific.
Done. --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And one or two notes could do with inline refs, #10, #11, #16. And #16, League Cup started in 1961 but Albion didn't join in until 1965 begs the question "why not?", perhaps just add something like "like a number of First Division clubs" and a reference.
Done. Can't find the reason they didn't enter from the start, but have footnoted the (probable) reason they did finally enter in 1965-66. --Jameboy (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you use FCHD as a source to anything in the list? if so, it should go in with the other general refs. Either way, I'd credit Mr Rundle by including him in the publisher param :)
I'd already checked all the stats up to 2002 against the McOwan 2002 and Matthews 2007 books. From 2002 I checked against Matthews and soccerbase. So the FCHD was really an afterthought and I haven't verified all the stats against it. If I do so in the future I'll move it into the References section. Have added the publisher param as you suggested though. --Jameboy (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Done. --Jameboy (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hope some of this helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments
  • Local cups. Leave as is, on the basis you have a reliable source; or change it to since the 1900s. Either would be acceptable.
I've gone for 1900s. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you've gone to a separate notes section, it would be easy to add sources for those notes mentioned above, which could do with them, now notes F (the RSSSF page you cited in response to Chris above would be good), G and L. And any others you think might benefit from a specific source.
I already did that :) [F][5], [G][6], [L][7]. Is that how you envisaged it? Or did you mean put the reference actually within the footnote? --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see now. Didn't realise it was possible to reference a footnote like that. I'm learning every day. Done. --Jameboy (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note O should be third rather than 3rd place play-off.
Done. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd put the general refs back to normal font size.
Done. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-written the lead per your comments. Reads much better now IMO. Many thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Satisfies the criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I am happy that this meets the criteria and is of a similar standard to existing "seasons" FLs. And what a shame it is that we don't have top-flight players with names like "Chippy" Simmons any more :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/West_Bromwich_Albion_F.C._seasons&oldid=1083283419"