Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ipswich Town F.C. Hall of Fame/archive1

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Ipswich Town F.C. Hall of Fame edit

Featured list candidates/Ipswich Town F.C. Hall of Fame/archive1

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was reliably informed that the Ipswich Town F.C. featured topic would be demoted if, amongst other things, this list wasn't taken up to FL standards. So here we are. As I know it can take a month or two for these things to precipitate, I've pushed it out early doors to give the FT people the notification that I'm serious about keeping the FT going, and I'd be grateful for any and all comments here regarding this article's suitability for an FL. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude
- First sentence could do with a source
- "a number of personnel associated with club" - think there's a word missing there
- Suggest merging two sentences at the end of the first para: "The inaugural members were [names], who were selected......."
- The notes are not sourced, and don't seem to be covered by the refs on the relevant rows, e.g. ref 1 does not seem to support any of notes 7, 8 or 9
Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, thanks very much for your review, I believe I've addressed the comments and certainly see an improvement from them (plus I learnt about {{efn-ua}}!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"is the most capped player while at Ipswich" → "is the most internationally capped player while at Ipswich"
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"international Mick Mills" - earlier on you say "England international Crawford" presumably because Crawford is mentioned and linked in the opening paragraph. Mills is also linked in first paragraph. Make it consistent
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ted Phillips - again mentioned and linked in opening paragraph - keep all three consistent
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John Elsworthy (2008) → John Elsworthy (inducted 2008)
(Ref numbers taken from this revision) Refs 27, 3, 9, 10 and 25 as well as general 2 are all dead for me
3 is fine for me. 9 is fine for me. 10 is fine for me. 25 is fine for me. 27 is dead, replaced. General 2 is dead, replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of overlinking of the work names in the references section. For example East Anglian Daily Times is linked three times but not at its first appearance where it should be. Also some links like Ipswich Town F.C. are linked at their second or third mention not at their first.
Sorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yellow Dingo, I have responded to your comments above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support good work TRM. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly just picky bits.

in the colour key, consider putting the symbol inside the coloured box, as you have at List of Ipswich Town F.C. players
MOS:DTT suggests that we give tables a descriptive caption
in the table, I'd suggest just using the letters N/A (or n/a, or an endash) in default font rather than the template: the small caps look incongruous, and the coloured background makes the reader wonder what the colour signifies
in general, I think we're supposed to use {{cite news}} rather than {{cite web}} for news sources these days
ref#1 author should be Jonathon with an O
ref#4 url doesn't go to the records page
ref#6 is long dead
ref#6 and ref#7 are from the same website, but one has it italicised and the other doesn't. I'd use |website=, but so long as you use the same for both, it'd be fine
ref#13 no other work/publisher is linked, so delink ITFC
ref#16 is the same as ref#3
ref#21 is the same as ref#4 (and also doesn't link to the records page despite the recent accessdate)
ref#28 needs an accessdate and an endash in the title
{{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}} have an alt text parameter which we're supposed to use, for accessibility, e.g. {{dagger|posthumous induction}}
- at every occurrence, not just in the key
  - Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about this, but what makes Pride of Anglia a reliable source? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Last first, I think I've answered this before a couple of times, it's used by people like the BBC (here for instance) so I have no reason to doubt it. Others I'll get to. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Struway2 all done I think. Thanks for your comments, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That BBC example really doesn't help. What that feature uses content from and links to are match reports copied from newspapers. Those copies include the writer's name at the end but don't bother mentioning the original sources or indeed that there were original sources...
    To be fair, I have no reason to doubt it for a list of who's in the ITFC Hall of Fame, but I'm not sure my opinion ought to count for much. The site doesn't appear to have an "about" page or any indication of who runs it and whether they have any external credibility. It's rare that I comment here these days: I presume the process does still need to demonstrate that sources used in FLs are RS? If you could show that its factual content, stats stuff or similar, was cited elsewhere... Struway2 (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't find the last time I did that, so that's going to be awkward. I think the fact that the BBC links to them many times offers some level of credibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for your prompt replies. I'll leave this thread open for others to judge. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Struway2: I no longer use the PoA website exclusively to reference anything, but I have left it there as it is corroborated in each case by other sources. Hopefully this alleviates your concern. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem now with referencing, thank you for adding the book source. Couple more bits: the images need alt text, and the caption on Muhren's picture says "indicted" rather than "inducted"... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, Freudian slip. Good spot. Fixed, and alt text added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Struway2: not sure if you saw that I'd resolved your last notes? No worries either way. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry boss, my attention span is shrinking by the ~~minute~~ second... All issues satisfactorily dealt with, am now happy to support. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries boss, my attention span expands to a full five minutes these days. Could be early-onset-Altzheimers, or perhaps it's just dealing with two sub-three-year-old kids. Or both. Either way, thanks again for your scrutiny. If I become a FLC delegate, I'll be calling on you to assist, assuming you have the time.... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review: passed. Promoting. --Pres N 20:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.