Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Leeds United A.F.C. seasons/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Leeds United A.F.C. seasons

Leeds United A.F.C. seasons

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review

Following a somewhat acrimonious bungled FLC attempt, and since one of the major editors no longer supports the list in its current state, I thought I'd bring this to peer review again so that the community can decide on a consensus for a number of things most significantly the inclusion of the current season which brought the majority of opposition at the failed FLC. In its current state it's very close, in my opinion, to the standard required for a WP:FL but I'd like the community to assist with the odd contentious issue and the wording of the lead. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Okay, every compromise I offer for the current season stats seem to get thrown back at me, so without much optimism I like to suggest a footnote saying what there curent status is. Not sure where the best place to put it would be. Buc (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has that not been rejected before Buc? There is simply no need for it. We are not a fanzine and should not have to provide the current details for the team on a page which is meant to act as a historical perspective. Woody (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, the point of not including the current season is that we don't have to continually update the page for it to be accurate. It wholly undermines the stability of the page. So, as the consensus of the community held before, no mention is needed of the current season other than a link to the article specifically about the current season. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I might chime in, I think this would be most usefully dealt with by a {{for}} tag at the top, linking to the appropriate article, a new one if need be. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've added a {{for}} to the current season. Actually I also removed the link to the club records because this article is about the seasons so it probably isn't particularly relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2008 (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 06:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems silly to have the key below the table it refers to. I had thought it had been left out altogether! --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Key is also exceedingly bloated. I suggest that the various divisions can just be pipe linked and then removed from the key - how is this done in other similar football FLCs? --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This pretty much is how it's done in other similar football FLCs. Manchester United F.C. seasons was the first to go to FLC (here) and the rest have followed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the problem comes from the fact that Leeds have featured in so many different league and cup competitions that a bloated key is somewhat unavoidable. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also pipelinked the first occurrence of each division type, the cups are all pipelinked already. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent>What about the method used here ? --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the leagues only account for half a dozen of the abbreviations, you have loads of cup competitions to worry about, all the round abbreviations and the usual PWDLFA stuff. So axing the league stuff wouldn't really solve the whole bloat problem (in my opinion...) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Could be right. Re position of the key, I think it makes more sense for it to be above, but I'm worried about its bloatedness. Could it be condensed somehow, or maybe hidden with one of those clever "hide/show" thingies. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could do. Does anyone else have an issue with the key? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not bothered by it. I did implement a hide/show key on a test version of BCFC seasons - so that the key could be top AND bottom without being too obtrusive - but rejected it as more irritation than it was worth having to click on something to see the key. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, tried it, didn't like it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose what I'd like to know is whether any of these comments would preclude a support should I take the article to WP:FLC... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting away from the key, here's a few Comments before you do nominate it.

  • Lead first para. Might read better with "the club's achievements in all major competitions together with the top scorers and the average attendances for each season." No need to mention managers not being included, though probably should mention abandoned 1939–40 season (if this isn't being included in the table, some do, some don't) as well as wartime comps.
  • Lead second/third para. I'd be inclined to expand a bit on their successful spells in the prose of the second para. It reads rather awkward and listy as it stands.
    • Help! I'm drying up. I completely agree this prose needs work, care to suggest something? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption. Did Bremner captain them to their successes of the late 60s/70s? if so, maybe use that in the caption to make it more relevant to this list.
    • Done Caption expanded to remark on cup success under Bremner's captaincy in 68 and 72. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table. FA Cup column: if there needs to be a reference at the top of the column, I'd prefer it to point somewhere more Leeds-FA-Cup-specific than soccerbase's current FA Cup page, would suggest Leeds page on fchd or footballsite.
  • Attendances. Source?
    • Done linked to a source which details all attendances at all matches for all seasons. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1919–20 goals F/A from Leeds source quoted differ from fchd; the Leeds source is consistent with the scores it gives for the individual matches. (this isn't a problem, as the figures are verifiable from the source quoted, I was just uncomfortable with it being different from fchd, which normally I'd believe implicitly)
    • Done That reference is now removed, we'll stick with fchd for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1920–21 season: what's the reference for?
  • 2002–03 and 04–05: should the notes go in the relevant column (renaming of Charity Shield in Other and renaming of divisions in Division), or stay where they are?
    • I'm not sure the renaming of the charity shield is particularly relevant at all - if moved from where the ref is now, it'd go in an empty cell. I'm tempted to move the renaming of Div 1 to Championship to next to "Champ" though. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • don't think the charity shield is relevant, it's just one of the footnotes that gets carried forward from whichever list was copied from. I did remove it from BCFC seasons on grounds of complete irrelevance. Struway2 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References. If using citation templates they ought to be filled in properly. E.g the club honours one (note 4 as I read): the article isn't called Leeds United official website - Club honours, it's called Honours, the work (if it needs specifying explicitly) is Official website, and the publisher is Leeds United A.F.C. and not leedsunited. I know some are rather less straightforward than that, but if aiming at featured list we ought to try and do it right. struway stops sounding pompous (for now) I'd be happy to go through them all if that would help.
    • I've fixed that one but it would be good if you wouldn't mind going through them? It's not hard work, just work nevertheless... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • now-ish, or wait a bit till we're sure which ones are going/staying in? Struway2 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now-ish would be good, I'm still working on the relevance of the 20/21 link above and beyond anything provided by any of the other sources. I have a feeling that Buc added it there because a while ago I asked the same question you're asking, but at the time the list had about nine external links... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • sorry, real life got in the way :-) am starting forthwith Struway2 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the! So after all my suggestions on how to fit in the current season were thrown back without much decussion suddenly it linked at the top of the page? What's going on here! Buc (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buc, you insisted on having the current season in the table, that's what the community objected to. Simple as that. The simple link at the top seems to be acceptable to all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good for the most part. The numbers need a double-check though. Just from a scan I can see that the 1987-88 and 1988-89 numbers are incorrect. I remember we (Villa list) had to do a thorough double check during FLC and found quite a few errors. We need it to be perfect now, don't we? ;) Woody (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double-checking of figures is definitely needed, just checked a couple and spotted an error. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've copied the figures from the chart and those from [1] as per the references section and cross-checked the figures on Excel. Only two are wrong and I've corrected them. Peanut4 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you check games played? I had to just fix one of those. Woody (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah just noticed that. I checked it and it didn't flag it up though. All the figures might not have copied into numbers properly and into text instead, so might need a manual check. Aaagh - I was hoping to make the procedure easier. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have manually checked upto 1930 if it helps. Some sort of automation would have been great... We can but dream. Woody (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minorest of the minor comments:
    • I've known the term "silverware" to confuse AmE speakers before, but then Silverware (sport) didn't exist at that time.
      • Indeed, I went looking and found it. I think unless it becomes a problem at FLC I'll leave it. I think it makes the prose a bit nicer. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If previous experience is anything to go by I'm probably the only one who advocates it, and I'm pretty sure you (TRM) disagree, but if the War League info is available I see no harm in including it, provided it is clearly stated that the competition was not viewed as competitive.
      • No, I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd be interested if anyone else would like to see it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think only completed seasons should be included, including the current season introduces stability issues (1e on the featured list criteria).
      • Well, the link to the current season will be stable for a year, the same amount of time that the page itself will be stable since as soon as the current season ends, the page will need to be updated. I think that's a fairly good compromise considering the acrimony that went on about including a row in the table for the current season. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's currently absolutely no reference or external link to the 1919-20 season. I'm not too happy with the top scorer and attendance saying unknown, without a reference either.
    •   Doing... That's probably down to me being overkeen to trim the links.. I'll go looking for one which I presumably have wiped out! Apologies... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done recovered the link, added a reference to the season and a footnote to the scorers (or lack of). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Other & Europe columns could be tidied up to some extent. They look pretty ugly and too prominent at the moment.
    • Could you be more specific? They are, after all, the most important columns and as far as I can see they just tell the facts in a succinct and well wikilnked manner. Any suggestions would be great! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not too important. But can anyone work out why "footnotes and references" is so far indented? Unless it's just on my machine. I've not seen it on any other seasons article. The only thing I could think of was because of the colour key but that can't be the case since it's not on other seasons articles.
    • Yeah, I've seen that but right now on Safari with width 1280 pixels, it's fine. I guess the key is interfering with the formatting. I'll have a fiddle. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done at least I think I have. It now seems to work under IE7 at all widths fine. Let me know if it's okay for you now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut4 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • It's only a minor point anyway, but it looks to be fixed now. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Struway, I'll put them here together as this page is getting very long.

  • Peanut's Other & Europe column tidying. See Bradford City A.F.C. seasons. There is just one Europe/Other section in two columns, the first has the competition name and the second has the round reached, and only the second column is coloured where necessary. So you don't get great swathes of gaudy orange and grey gold and silver all over the page. It does look neater that way.
    • Yeah, that's fine but how do you deal with more than one competition with differing success in a single season? Two rows for a single season? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Leeds season 1970/1 which already has more than one competition with differing success (it is effectively two rows for one season, but only the relevant column has the two rows separate, the others are all rowspan=2) Struway2 (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I created the Bradford City A.F.C. seasons. I think it keeps the competition name and round separate so as not to confuse the data and have huge yellow boxes. Peanut4 (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done but no doubt going to cause more issues as the key has had to expand to accommodate the new abbreviations (which were inevitable as far as I could see...) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Midland League season. When first mentioned above 1919–20 goals F/A from Leeds source quoted differ from fchd; the Leeds source is consistent with the scores it gives for the individual matches. (this isn't a problem, as the figures are verifiable from the source quoted, I was just uncomfortable with it being different from fchd, which normally I'd believe implicitly), we agreed to go with fchd. The Leeds source is now back, but the goals f/a are still those from fchd. I'd prefer to add fchd to External links, which appears to be a de facto general references section anyway, and remove the Leeds ref again.
    • Done Yes, I've done that now, hope Peanut4 is happy with that too! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked the league standings figures and found one more discrepancy which I've fixed. Doesn't mean there aren't any more though.
    • I've asked Woody to help out with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The League figures are all checked against the source. Checking the Cup ones now... Woody (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, FA Cup and League Cup are accurate. QF isn't used though. Perhaps all of the R6(FA) and R5(League) could use QF instead? Woody (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought it had been discussed before that the FA Cup 6th round is not generally referred to as the QF. The league cup, on the other hand, I have no preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't remember the discussion, but anyway. I only mention it because fchd doesn't. Woody (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded the 1919 scorers/attendances not known note to mention attendances as well as scorers ;-) The ref link for this widened the Attendance column enough to push the RH edge of the table off my 1024-pixel screen, so I've changed Unknown to Not known, which wraps thus reducing column width and curing the problem.
  • War leagues. wouldn't object to their inclusion, after all, the list's called Seasons, not Official competitive seasons. On BCFC seasons I included the 1945/6 Football League South, on the basis we won it the source material was available, and intend to add the rest once I sort out which matches went in which competitions. WAFLL does appear to have all the league tables.
  • The expanded second paragraph is a definite improvement, I'll have a proper look at it later but don't think it needs much doing to.
    • I look forward to hearing your assessment! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • don't think it was worth the anticipation. Added mention of the 1924 second division title which meant the next bit needed them to be waiting for major silverware. Fiddled with some of the rest but not convinced I haven't made it worse. Please anyone literate feel free to make improvements. Struway2 (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary (so far) edit

Okay, phew, well a lot of work has gone into the article during the PR already, many thanks for the plethora of encouraging and constructive comments. I'd like, if I may, to summarise what may be outstanding before this list should make its way to WP:FLC.

  • Wartime seasons. Include or exclude?
  • Lead prose. Good, bad or ugly?
  • Accuracy. Finished checking?
  • New column/row organisation for Europe/other and associated Key modifications. Okay?

Thanks again for all of your efforts. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wartime: IMO, No.
Lead: Good, thanks everyone involved
Charming! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Accuracy:League figures accurate, FA/League cups accurate, (Europe/other needs to be checked)
I've checked Europe, all good against fchd. Just Full Members Cup to go... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's checked out fine too. So hopefully no longer an issue... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New column:Looks good. Woody (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wartime: I'd prefer them in, if source material available, but their absence wouldn't affect my support.
Lead: Better since I corrected us relegating them to League Two (for those of you who support big clubs and never look that far down, that's actually the Fourth Division...)
Mea culpa. Freudian slip?! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy: Do the scorers come from a list, in which case they could be easily checked, or off individual season pages?
New column: Much better. Question: would the key benefit from the abbreviations for divisions and rounds being in alphabetical order? and/or, would it benefit from the sections having headings as per Birmingham City F.C. seasons#Key, Gillingham F.C. seasons#Key et al? Struway2 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the league's in the key ought to be sorted in order of decreasing significance, per Gillingham, but we do have a mixture of references and footnotes so not sure we could replicate the structure easily... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've confused you. What I meant was, should the sections within the key have headings, like Key to league record, Key to rounds, as Gillingham and others have. Struway2 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it's pretty obvious myself the way it's structured so I don't mind either way... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it. It looks okay and helped balance things out a bit so I think I'll leave it at that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Anything else from anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems tip-top. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Leeds_United_A.F.C._seasons/archive2&oldid=280099254"