Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Premier League Asia Trophy/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Premier League Asia Trophy edit

Featured list candidates/Premier League Asia Trophy/archive1

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original version and now meets all 6 FL criteria. This list is largely modelled after the Emirates Cup, which was promoted almost a year ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments sorry you've had to wait three weeks for some comments, here are some starters for ten.

No need to link "biennially" to Wiktionary in my opinion, keep it simple with "every two years".

Changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think a link to common geographical entities like England is necessary.

De-linked. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" Barclays Asia Trophy" avoid bold links.

De-linked. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" three clubs that are members of the Premier League at the time,[A] " no need to link clubs and the "at the time" is slightly misleading as it has nothing to do with promotion and relegation - if a club could still qualify having just been promoted or just been relegated, I'd buy it, but that isn't the case.

De-linked for first. Removed "at the time" for the second (hope that clears up the misleading part). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid easter egg, make the link to the 2017 edition piped to "2017 edition" not just "2017". Apply to all subsequent similar eggs.

Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" at the last-minute" not really, the tournament doesn't start until late-July.

Removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Hong Kong has hosted the tournament three times, more than any other city." do you want to add that they are also the 2017 hosts?

Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance but what do the %'s mean?

I think the percentages refer to the % of households with a TV that had Premier League games available / could broadcast them. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" in Pompey's favour" first and only use of any club by nickname, avoid.

Changed to Portsmouth. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"a brace by Robbie Keane" I would usually say "a brace from" but YMMV.

No, you're right it sounds better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" thrashing the " not particularly encyclopedic.

Changed to "routing the". Will that do, or will "beating" be preferable? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Africa and United States do not need to be linked.

De-linked. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point, Sunderland is actually A.F.C, not F.C.

Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would add TBDs into the 2017 row for 1st to 4th place rather than leave it blank.

Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually say who is in the 2017 tournament besides Palace?

Well I was planning to add that to the History section after the tournament concludes. Would it be preferable to list them out now? And if so, to the lead or to "History". —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom6132 I think it's incomplete without them, and would probably add a sentence in the lead saying who is competing with Palace, and make sure it's also covered in the History section. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: added to both the lead and History section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"with the latter side " side is unnecessary here.

Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: thanks for your feedback; I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed, nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending one niggle - in the notes section, you have "The three clubs are selected according to their position in the league table. One of the teams selected achieved the top five, the other team finished in sixth to tenth place, while the final team placed in the 11–15 position" (all three number ranges should be words or numbers. My vote would be to make the last words as well ("eleventh to fifteenth") but not fussed the other way. Otherwise I can't see anything to complain about WRT comprehensiveness or prose. A nice little read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Casliber. Fixed the note with your recommended wording. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

"in another in" is a little clunky – could it just be "again".

Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"was dismal" is not really encyclopaedic language; using "dismal" like this is quite informal.

Changed to "underwhelming". —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Harrias ^talk 11:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The archived version of Ref #4 doesn't work for me. (The original does.)
Same for ref #7.
And ref #8.
And ref #13.
And ref #14.
And ref #19.
And ref #20.
And ref #28.
And ref #30.
And ref #33.
And ref #34.
And ref #42.
And ref #43.

Since Wayback has proved to be unreliable in this case, I've archived all the above refs with WebCite. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #39 needs to be marked as subscription only, as even through the wayback machine, all I get is a single paragraph, before being redirected to a visitor landing page. Harrias ^talk 07:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Marked. That's strange because, other than me having to close a notice telling me to disable my ad-blocker, the article works fine for me (a non-subscriber). —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Thanks for the review; I've addressed all the comments above. Please let me know if there's anything else for me to fix. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support; all my (minor) concerns have been resolved, and this is a nice piece of work which meets the criteria. Harrias ^talk 16:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – My only nitpick is the repetition in the lead photo caption: "Chelsea celebrate with the trophy after winning the 2011 Premier League Asia Trophy." I know the name of the event makes it tough, but they're celebrating with the trophy after winning the trophy. Chopping "with the trophy" gets rid of the redundancy while getting the point across. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: I've replaced "celebrate with the trophy" with "celebrate with the tournament cup". Will that be alright? I can change "tournament" to "competition" if it sounds better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2017 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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