Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records

< 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 17:25, 14 September 2008 [1].

Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records edit

previous FLC (22:24, 19 February 2008)

I am renominating this as I think I have dealt with all the problems highlighted in the previous FLC. The things I have not remedied: record transfer fees received; I have not found a single source that collates this, as such, it would be original research to a point. I also don't see the complete relevancy for this, the record transfer fees paid is hugely relevant, fees paid not so much. So, here we go again. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • How leads read for FLs has now changed, so it should need to start something like "Aston Vila Football Club is..." or something. But that's basically already there with the second paragraph, so what needs doing is a bit of reordering.
  • "InterToto Cup" - "Intertoto".
  • Also, the link is wrong.
  • No needed for "Winners" beside it, as it says this directly below.
  • "1981(shared)" - "1981 (shared)"
  • Maybe when the club was runner-up in a competition could be included in the "Honours" section?
  • All dates need unlinking, I found this out myself a few days ago.
  • I'd put "against" rather than "v.".
  • How many caps did Steve Staunton get? And who for?
  • Maybe "Record transfer fees" could be renamed "Record transfer fees paid" for clarity, despite there being no section for record fees received.
  • Need some full stops in the "Managerial records" section.
  • References needed for "First manager/secretary of the club" and "Most successful manager".
  • "in 1930–31 season" - "in the 1930–31 season", which needs doing for the rest of the seasons.
  • "Division One / 1969–70" - perhaps "Division One and the 1969–70" instead?
  • First League Cup match?
  • "League: 69,492" - "League game: 69,492".
  • "Cup game: 76,588" - "FA Cup game: 76,588".
  • "the European Cup which" - comma needed
  • Think it would look better if the contents of the "Round", "Country", "Home result" and "Away results" columns were centralised.
  • A key is needed to clarify what each of the rounds are.
  • "Record by Competition" - "Competition" doesn't need to be capitalised.
  • "Correct as of 29 July, 2008" - out of date I assume?
  • Maybe this table could be made sortable?
  • "For" and "Against" are a bit unclear - "Goals for" and "Goals against" instead?

A fair bit. Think a peer review would have been best. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your winners comment. In terms of dates, it is still optional until our MOS warriors stop warring over at MOSNUM, so it isn't obligatory to unlink just yet. (v.) is a common and well-used term and is used in other FLs. I think including runner-up would cramp it somewhat, and isn't that important, and potentially devalues the "Winner" links due to it being cramped. The / is used in a number of places and is used for consistency (and is perfectly valid grammatically). The League Cup match was already there (v. Huddersfield) but an unclosed ref tag was hiding it. Only thing outstanding is aligning the columns, I am not sure about them, waiting for further input from other reviewers. Woody (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments Fair enough with those you haven't chosen to do, they were more of personal opinion. But we'll see on the alignment issue eventually.

  • What I'm referring to is "Intertoto Cup Winners" - the "Winners" seems redundant when it says they won it directly below.
  • Full stop needed after "for the Republic of Ireland".
  • Ref 44 needs converting into a footnote.
  • The "Total" row in the "Record by competition" needs to be made unsortable.
  • I think this table should also have its contents aligned in the centre, but you can wait for what others think.
  • Perhaps a "Record by location" table could be added?

Cheers. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done the Intertoto, done full stop, done ref 43, made unsortable. How do you mean record by location? I can't see any in any other stats FLs? Villa have only ever been at Villa Park since 1896... Woody (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're in the process of getting those done. And this is what I'm talking about. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, apologies, I had done them in a different tab and forgot to save! Is records by location that neccessary? I am sure I could rustle one up, just not sure that it is that informative? I will see what other reviewers think. Thanks for all your time. Woody (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Added in the runners up into the Honours section now, thanks. Woody (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments Not far off now.

  • "League titles" should just be "League" now.
  • I'd say using reference [4] after the final honours of the different sections is a bit redundant with it being provided at the end of the sententce at the beginning of the section.
  • "Charity Shield" - should be changed to "Community Shield".
  • Could the "Record transfer fees paid" table be made sortable?
  • Do you know the "Record League Cup win"?
  • Or the "Record League Cup defeat" or "Record European defeat"?
  • Don't think reference [37] mentions their attendance against Liverpool being their record Premier League attendance.
  • Could you find the highest attendances at Villa Park in the League Cup or in Europe?
  • Or the lowest attendance at Villa Park in the Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup or Europe?
  • The figures in the "Total" row of the "Record by competition" table could be bolded.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done League, removed redundant referencing, haven't changed the Charity Shield as it was been called the Charity Shield when they won it, made table sortable, added League Cup win and European defeat, done the bolded totals, switched the ref to programme notes which took me a while to find in my loft. I haven't been able to find the records for the other ones. I could go through the records for each season, but that would be synthesis/OR as it I cannot find them explicitly stated anywhere, and I could get it wrong. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"4&ndash1" needs fixing for the "Record European defeat" you added. Fair enough with the Community Shield. Could any of your Villa books explicity state the "Record League Cup defeat", or the record highest/lowest attedances? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woody's away at the minute, I fixed the 4-1 typo though, Struway2 (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't; believe me, I have looked! One of the books has all of the records at the back over 4 pages so that is easy to check. I have gone through the A-Z book and cannot find any of the record attendances broken down by competition. That information simply isn't available to me through printed media, and the internet has proved paritcularly barren when it comes to finding reliable sources (or even unreliable ones) that state any of those requested. There simply is nowhere else available to me to look at. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
    • Reference needed for the "Record European win".
    • Reference [35] needs converting into a footnote.
    • Could the record League Cup defeat not be worked out using FCHD?
    • "UEFA CUP" - "CUP" doesn't need to be capitalised.
    • My opinion is it seems quite "wonky" really to have the highest attendances in three competitions and only the lowest in one competition. I'd consider only having the record highest and record lowest for equality, but that's upto you really.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Done the first 4, though I suspect the FCHD crosses into the murky WP:SYN/WP:OR boundary, though I think it is an acceptable source. In terms of the attendances, I don't think symmetry is a neccessity here. Personally, I think the larger the number of those records available, the better. It includes all the available information, though I do understand your viewpoint. (Sorry for the late replies but I went away for the week). Thanks again for the time you have spent reviewing this. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If you feel it would be pretty much impossible to get those record highest and lowest attendances, then nevermind really, I feel it meets the FL criteria anyway. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added publisher, removed three, commented about one. Woody (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed last remaining questionable ref now. Woody (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments quite a bit, I'm afraid, much of it minor stuff:

  • Lead. Unbold club name.
  • Do you need to link the year they moved to Villa Park?
  • If linking years, why link 1982 to 1982 in English football when the others are yyyy in association football?
  • Last sentence doesn't need to mention Aston Villa's first England players twice
  • Relevance of Young being the 66th? if the most recent, say "66th and most recent". As he's not mentioned in the international section, he needs a source.
  • You need a line saying "All figures are correct as of..."
  • Suggest reducing the size of the displayed table of contents
  • Image caption: century doesn't need capital
  • Honours. League Cup not a senior league honour
  • Is any of the bolding really necessary (see MOS:BOLD)?
  • Team picture image captions are fragments so don't need full stops
  • Player records. Perhaps add a See also List of AVFC players
  • For me on a 1024-width screen, the players' names in the tables wrap. If you adjusted the column widths a bit (this and this have 6, 20, 12s and 14), the League Cup heading might wrap but the names won't
  • The # column in the goalscorers table doesn't sort properly (because of the 10=). It gets to reverse order, but won't go back
  • International. I prefer while to whilst, but that may be just a matter of taste
  • Much overlinking in this bit (McParland linked 3 times, etc)
  • Don't need to repeat whilst an AV player for Southgate, the heading note already defines the scope
  • Does "in a World Cup" mean "at a/the World Cup Finals"?
  • Transfer fees. The notes for the undisclosed fees belong in the footnotes section (and "Milners" needs an apostrophe)
  • Clubs should be left-aligned, and West Ham should be West Ham United
  • Ashley Young image caption doesn't need a full stop. Perhaps rephrase to something like "Until August 2008, Ashley Young was Villa's record signing.", in which case with a full stop
  • Managerial records. Ramsay overlinked
  • Club records: Goals. Typo in fewest conceded...
  • Overlinking in goals and points sections
  • Matches. First European match. In what comp?
  • Record European win. In what comps, and put "and" rather than "/"
  • Check for missing full stops at ends of lines in the Matches sections, there are at least 2 but my eyes aren't as young as they were :-( also after v for versus
  • Record league defeat. Here you call it the First Division, but you've been calling it Division One
  • Attendances. FA Cup. Don't need to repeat FA Cup in match details. Do need consistency for round names (either 6th as you have here, or first as you have in Record FA Cup win)
  • Villa in Europe table. Your rounds column has e.g. "2R" but your key has "R2". I'd prefer to see that column centred
  • Flags column. WP:FLAGS#Accompany flags with country names says flags should always be accompanied by their country name, at least when first used. It doesn't bother me so much in the small player tables where they're mostly British anyway (though it probably should :-) But in this there's no real reason why the MoS shouldn't be followed (and here as well, which I might change in a minute :-)
  • I'd probably put Deportivo La Coruña rather than just Deportivo
  • Scoreline columns should be much narrower, the same width as each other, and centred. Could just head them Home and Away, and leave out "result".
  • Footnote E would do better as a * or similar symbol in the table key, or as a note above the table as here
  • Record by competition. Numeric columns should be either lined up arithmetically (like in player infoboxes) or centred. And the widths need sorting out
  • Footnotes C and D need sources.
  • Refs currently 3 & 4. If you put publisher=Aston Villa F.C., it'd be both consistent and informative
  • Ref 12. Write out IFFHS in full, so we ignorant readers know what it is
  • Ref 14 has FA, ref 40 has Football Association (FA). If you're going to abbreviate, do first occurrence in full then abbreviate later ones.
  • General refs. Spell out Aston Villa F.C., not AVFC.
  • Do you use Martensson's database as a reference still, or have you just not removed mention of it?

hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (copied from the previous FLC :-) The club article MoS recommends including second places while accepting that For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places. So although you wouldn't include runners-up spots in the corresponding section of the main club article, I do think it would be appropriate to include them here.
  • Fewest points in season. the 29 pts one, prefer repeating "and in the 1969-70 season..." rather than just the "/"
  • You could include the pretty attendance graph from the Villa Park article
    • I have done all but three of those. I don't think that the runners-up are neccessary or relevant here. I think they would devalue the "winners" that are there at the moment. It might get a bit crowded. I couldn't fit the image in, it kept wrapping and clashing, and it looked out of place underneath the matches sub-heading. That and the "/": I have kept that in as frankly, I prefer them and think they look better. Personal opinion though. Thanks for all your time reviewing this. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • following on from above.
      • Not convinced about the runners-ups being irrelevant
      • Perhaps add a note at the foot of the (appearances) tables to say what "Other competitions" includes. Done, but it'd be clearer in normal font size.
      • (in the international section) Countries should be linked to their football team, not the country itself. You missed this one
  • Flags column (Villa in Europe). Done, but I changed it to use the {{flag}} template instead of {{flagicon}}, this generates the country name automatically, which makes it easier for future updaters to follow (and widened the table to stop things wrapping); if you don't like it, please change it back.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, I saw your edits to the article: they look great thankyou! I missed the international ones, done now, removed the small text. I am not convinced about the runners up, I don't see the need for it and I haven't been persuaded... Thanks for your time. RegardsWoody (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Added in the runners up into the Honours section now, thanks. Woody (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, assuming you decide whether or not a player's name should be wikilinked in his image caption, and de-link Mellberg or link Young accordingly. well done, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinked, thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Jameboy (talk · contribs)
  • I found various sources for the Curtis Davies transfer, quoting the fee variously as 8, 9 and 10 million (for the references, see the Curtis Davies article itself or West Bromwich Albion F.C.). If you're saying that the source quoting 8 million is a more reliable figure then you should say why that source is more reliable. --Jameboy (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See these diffs. Essentially, I have removed him from the table because the sources differ so much. I don't think it is correct to include him in the table given the speculative nature of the fee. Milner is more certain as the media were unequivocally stating that his was the club's record transfer, so that is on a much surer footing. (Sorry about the tardiness of the reply, I was away for the week). Regards. Woody (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a few more things I've spotted, having looked at it more thoroughly.
  • For the youngest & oldest player, would it be possible to mention which competition each record was set in?
  • "From" (club) column in "Record transfer fees paid" needs consistent alignment (I'd suggest left-aligned)
  • Adding a results section for European football only seems like a strange inclusion and something I probably wouldn't expect to see here. It seems kind of arbitrary to include results only from Europe and not from domestic football (space issues aside). Does it need to be there?
  • Returning to the transfers, I'm not convinced by your reasons for including Milner but not Davies. The reference in the Milner article (from The Guardian) gives Milner's fee as £12m, which differs from the £10m in the footnote here, so I don't see it as being any more certain. Whether quoted as a record fee or not, is still undisclosed. I think you should include both Milner and Davies in the table (with footnotes) or omit both (with explanatory text/footnotes). --Jameboy (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done the first one, the second one is already done (is it not done for you? It renders correctly as far as I can see), I have removed Milner from the list and wrote about him in the intro para for that section. In terms of Europe, I feel that it is important to have them listed, Europe is above the other competitions in terms of standards and is well respected and wanted in terms of information. I know it is otherstuffexists, but it is included in other FLs. I also note that this has already been promoted, so any further comments should probably go on the article talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - With all the above issues accounted for, I can see no reason why this doesn't meet the Featured List Criteria, quality work. Sunderland06 (talk) 12:53, 13 September 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Aston_Villa_F.C._statistics_and_records&oldid=1138479057"