Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. seasons/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 not promoted by Giants2008 19:06, 8 January 2012 [1].

---

List of Arsenal F.C. seasons

List of Arsenal F.C. seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. seasons/archive1
• Featured list candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. seasons/archive2

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

* This list is nowhere near featured standard, to inline citations, the two web based general references are dead. On references alone it is nowhere near featured standard, and that is without mentioning the table which is not compliant with WP:ACCESS, and should be sortable. I would advise looking at season lists that are Featured lists such as List of Liverpool F.C. seasons and List of Watford F.C. seasons to get an idea of what is required. NapHit (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC) You're getting there here are a few more suggestions; Check the sorting in some of the columns, some of them don't sort properly Will start on this. Completed. I would replace n/a with — allows those seasons to go to the bottom when sorting. Done. Align the entries in the cup competitions columns centrally Done. Left European competitions aligned left however. Also you need to add symbols per WP:ACCESS when using colours Added symbols for promotion and relegation, not sure about top scorers. Yep you need symbols for them, plus add the colours for promotion and relegation. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I would simply abbreviate Winners and Runners-up to W and RU Move the key before the table Done. Still uncertain what is referencing the table, I presume it's one of the books? It's The Official Illustrated History of Arsenal, how am I meant to cite the table? Leave that in general references and move the rest of the books to a bibliography. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Make the writing for the bits about the wars full size per WP:ACCESS Done. ref 21 needs an accessdate Access dates are invalid for newspaper citations. I can't seem to find a better source for this one at the moment. — Lemonade51 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Few more: Why do you have Lon Comb, S Reg Lge and Lon Lge in the key if they are not used in the table? Likewise RInt I can't see that in the table either Removed. The sorting is still not fixed, I would suggest coping the sorting format from one of the featured lists, as they work. Removed information about the war in the table and put it under footnotes (which was the problem I think, couldn't get 'football span' template to work), the sorting should work now. — Lemonade51 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Sorting on the lost column is no right, all the other are fine. NapHit (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC) The Round reached column does not sort properly and there is one cell not sorting correctly in the lost column. NapHit (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC) It's ranked on the importance of the competition (Champions League, CWC, UEFA Cup, Inter-Cities, Super Cup); I have corrected a problem in the 1979/80 season. Have also adjusted LOST column. — Lemonade51 (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC) It should be ranked the same as the other columns, leaving it the way it is, is complicated for the reader, and the importance of competitions is subjective, you might deem a competition more important than someone else. This is why its best to have it sorting the same as the other columns. NapHit (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Corrected, Lemonade51 (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC) No need for 1st to be italicised just leave it as normal Adjusted. You need rowscopes and a caption for the table Added. ref 20 needs an author Added. Put sort dash in all the columns that are empty Have done. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• There are still links that need dismbiguating, clink on disamb links in the toolbox on the right to fix these. Corrected
• I'm going to wait until Struway's comments are dealt with until I vote, as I am also concerned about the sourcing. NapHit (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Really weak lead for such a prestigious club. Corrected. MOS failures such as MOS:DASH. Corrected. Needs more refs, e.g. all notes which make claims should be referenced. Done. Fix the dab links (e.g. First Division). Corrected Ref 1 is dead. Was it ever reliable? Replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Noting that the list looks like it's had work since the reviews above... Feels like another word should be in "one of which shared", like "was". Corrected. History: "the club relocated to Arsenal Stadium in Highbury, North London where it remained as their home ground until 2006." The "as their home ground" is a bit redundant and only serves to add confusion to the sentence. Corrected. Why not just Tottenham Hotspur F.C. instead of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club? Corrected. Add "the" to "Arsenal have since remained in top division of English football? Corrected. Spaced em dash in the second paragraph should either be made unspaced or switched to a spaced en dash, per MoS. Done. The hyphen in 1963-64 should be an en dash. Same for 1888-89. Done. "and well as a...". "well as" are redundant and aren't needed. Corrected. In the table, sorting in several numeric columns isn't working properly, and the leading scorers are sorting by first name, instead of last name as usual. Adjusted. Bolding in tables is discouraged per the MoS. We tend to look the other way when row scopes are involved, but there's no reason that trophy-winning teams and leading scorers need bolding. Italics are a more MoS-friendly substitute. Adjusted. The question of whether refs 1 and 2 (and 9) are reliable is still up in the air. Ref 1 looks like someone's personal site, so I don't trust that one. Corrected. Refs 5 and 6 need en dashes in the title to replace hyphens. Corrected. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Have made corrections, thank you all for your feedback. — Lemonade51 (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC) One more thing I saw while checking changes: Ref 23 shouldn't have all caps in the title, even if they appear that way on the website. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — Corrected, Lemonade51 (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I think you may have mis-typed the codes for the colours applied to some of the cells. Currently lots of them are black, rendering the text in the cell completely unreadable.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Is that #DDD used for runners-up? If so, I have corrected it. Thanks. — Lemonade51 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

* Image caption shouldn't have a full stop (MOS:CAPTION) Corrected. Gold and silver boxes need to show that they're using the symbols W/1st and RU/2nd as the accessible alternative to the colour I borrowed the key from List of Birmingham City F.C. seasons, hope you don't mind! :) Promotion and relegation up- and down-arrows need to use the accessible alternative, e.g. {{↑}} with appropriate alt text Changed Joint top goalscorers would look neater if each name appeared on a separate line with no punctuation, and would have the useful side-effect of reducing the width of that column. But if you want to keep the existing format, please use normal font size Have made adjustments. William Scott links to a disambiguation page Changed, to William Scott (English footballer) purely because his DOB isn't Europe column (or "other competitions" column, for clubs where that's a more appropriate heading) is usually split into two, one for competition name and one for round reached; only the round takes any colouring required If by doing so how do you suggest I accommodate the Charity/Community Shield? Branched together with Europe as "Other Competitions" or in its own seperate column? Made changes to table, you may need to double check it. —Lemonade51 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC) The rows need scopes, not just the columns Note B: no, they didn't. (Reference numbers and note letters are meant to relate to this version of the list) Arsenal entered the Football League in 1893-94 was what I meant to add. Note G should have an endash in the season, not a hyphen Corrected. Note J should use day-first date format, for consistency Corrected. Note N: 38-game season with a hyphen Corrected. Note P: Diego Forlán with an acute accent Corrected. Refs ##12, 16, 17 need endashes rather than hyphens in the titles Corrected. Ref #15 needs an author Added. Ref #21 is available online here, if you fancy adding the url Added, thank you for the link. Ref #12 doesn't verify Arsenal being the first since Preston in 1888/89 to go through a season undefeated, nor does it obviously verify Note N Corrected. What makes Arseweb a reliable source? I've used other sources in its place. It falls under the category of 'unreliable' because it's a personal website I think. Couple of minor things: the club's previous names shouldn't be italicised (MOS:ITALIC), and normal BritEng usage would be to omit the F.C. from Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Corrected. — Amended. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC) In the lead, the bit about being elected to the First Division ahead of Spurs in contentious circumstances is sourced to two books and annotated word-for-word the same as ref #7 in the main club article. I don't think we ought to be copying other people's words, particularly without acknowledgment, though I can see why you might want to, as their original author was a rather better writer than many of us. But did you check the facts in both books yourself before "re-using" the wording? I have double checked both books and I didn't think I could have summarised it better, hence why I took the wording from the main article. If it's inadvisable then I apologise. However, I did add a short sentence on the results of the voting. I withdraw the bit about "don't think we ought to", sorry... There's nothing wrong with copying (in reasonable amounts), especially as you checked the sources yourself, but it's a question of attribution: see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. An edit summary with a link back to the version you took it from is adequate, for such a small borrowing. -- Corrected In the 1890s, Woolwich Arsenal played 3 seasons in the United League; did they play it as a first-team competition? They did (from 1896 to 1899) but I don't think it would be sufficent enough to add the results into the table, nor is there sufficent information about it in the Illustrated books. I could footnote the 1896/97 season and use this as a reference for the 'United League' results but is it a reliable source? If it was a first-team competition, it should be in the main list, as the Watford and Barcelona seasons lists include secondary leagues. The formatting can be copied from the Watford list. The 2011 illustrated history includes the W/D/L/F/A stuff for the United League, as it does for the Southern District Combination and London League in the early 1900s, which rather implies they were first-team comps as well? I have added the United League, London Comb and London League results. You've duplicated the 1897/98 United League details in the 1898/99 row — Corrected One new point, following on from the inclusion of the supplementary leagues. As it stands, Note A says that the top goalscorer figures include "Goals in all competitions...". Should they be updated to include goals from the supplementary leagues, or left as they are? Either way, the note will need rewording. — Corrected New point: I just did a spot-check of the top goalscorers against Andy Kelly's site. Of a random ten seasons checked, four had top goals scored different in the table from those on Mr Kelly's pages, which (unless I was very unlucky) is quite a high proportion of discrepancies. One example: in the table, Doug Lishman has 30 and 26 goals in the 1951/52 and 1952/53 seasons, where Kelly gives 29 and 25... — Corrected, I believe it's up to scratch now. FA Cup column: not sure how sensible it is to have this sortable on round name, because the same round name hasn't always meant the same stage of the competition. This was discussed at length at Watford seasons FLC, and ended up with the column left unsortable, but that was a long time ago, and I don't know what's been done if the question's arisen since. Would you suggest making it unsortable? Personally, I'm not bothered. But whatever you choose to do, you need a note either to explain why that particular column is unsortable, or to clarify that before 1926 or whenever it was that they stabilised the structure, the round names bore little relation to the stage of the competition and aren't comparable with round names after that date. — Added Fine by me, once you add a source to your note — Added a source.

Oppose. Lot of minor stuff, but serious concerns over the sourcing.

• Will leave reviewing the quality of the lead to others.

• I still can't see a convincing source for the contents of the table. You appear to be saying that a book published in 2000 is the source for the entire contents of a table that goes up to 2011. You're not really claiming that, surely.....
  • Amended to the recent edition, available as of 3 October 2011.
    • I realise the content of the list was there before you started editing it, and you can't be expected to guess where the original authors got the data from. But presumably you checked the content yourself before submitting the list here, so you do know where the facts can be verified. The statistical section at the back of the 2011 illustrated history only starts listing individual appearances and goals by season after the First World War. Whereabouts does it give the pre-WWI top goalscorers?
      • Here, which I have cited now.
        • Congratulations on finally coming up with a set of sources which actually do verify the contents of the table. Unfortunately, the obvious follow-up question is what makes Andy Kelly's site a reliable source? Personally, I'd lean towards its reliability by virtue of Mr Kelly being an expert in the field of Arsenal history, but not sure I could satisfactorily demonstrate it.
          • He does have a comprehensive knowledge of the club; he is a memeber of the 'Arsenal History Society' and his official website is reguarly updated.
            • In addition, the "125 years of Arsenal history" sections on Arsenal's website include and appear to accept large elements of Kelly's and colleague Tony Attwood's research which to some extent contradict the "established" version of the club's history: see e.g. 1886–1891 and 1891–1896. Struway2 (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That's enough for now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough feedback! —Lemonade51 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. Please accept my apologies for taking so long in returning to this review. I'd got out of the habit of reviewing here and forgot all about it.... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note to the nominator: please do not strike through the comments of reviewers by yourself. Let them make the decision as to whether or not comments have been fully resolved. If there's an area that needs more work, the strikes will obscure that, making things inconvenient for everyone. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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