Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Wales national football team results (1960–1979)/archive1

< 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Wales national football team results (1960–1979) edit

Wales national football team results (1960–1979) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number five in the series. Once again, thanks to HawkAussie for their work on the table conversion. The format follows the same style as the previous four lists which have all gone up for FL status. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "Their first match of the period was a 3–2 victory over Northern Ireland secured a...." - think there's at least one word missing here
  • "The second leg at Ninian Park proved controversial while crowd trouble led Wales...." - was the game controversial because of the crowd trouble? The word "while" kinda implies that it was controversial for a different reason but then you don't say what that was......
  • "For the 1976 tournament, quarter-finals were played" - should this be "the quarter-finals"?
  • "....with the finals hosting only the semi-finals and beyond" - reads very oddly - the finals hosted the semi-finals?
  • "The 1966–67 and 1967-68 British Home Championship was used" => "The 1966–67 and 1967-68 British Home Championships were used"
  • "would qualify for the UEFA Euro 1968" - the Euro 19XX name style was not in use at the time, this should just say 1968 UEFA European Football Championships. Also, this note is missing its full stop.
  • Having a webpage covering Scotland's international results as a general ref seems a bit weird
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks as ever for the review. I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know what you think, cheers. Kosack (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Is there a reference for Note b?
  • What happened to the usual note saying: "Table information sourced from the references listed in the statistics section below"?

That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL333 17:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Thanks for taking a look. I've amended both points above. Kosack (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • '"Between 1960 and 1979 the side played 132 matches" table starts with match number 234 and ends 351. That's 118 matches inclusive, right? What's not quite right here?
  • I also count 31 wins, not 30, but I might have made a mistake because...
    Thanks for spotting those, you're correct on both counts, the numbers were off on. I've found the errors and fixed them. Kosack (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... I've noticed that you can't sort by wins. I think the Score column should be "hidden sorted" to sort by best win down to worst win, then highest scoring draws down to 0-0's, then least bad loss to worst loss...
    When I started these lists, I used the same format as the existing FLs. At this point, being five lists into a series with only two to go, I'm loathe to be restructuring at this point. Is this likely to be a deal-breaker? Kosack (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The only issue I have is that the lead talks about numbers of wins (hence the comment above), it does seem strange that you can sort by the result that you give in the key, literally no way of sorting the table by "success" which does (in retrospect on the other reviews) seem like an oversight.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think attendance should be right aligned.
    May I ask why? I'm viewing on mobile so spacing issues are always slightly different, but the attendance column appears to match the positioning of the other columns for me? Kosack (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just that the numbers, when less than 10,000, look odd to me, numbers like that should really line up units to units. Even centre-alignment would be better than left-aligned. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it but forgive me if I've made some kind of fundamental misunderstanding with the numbers... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review TRM, I've added comments above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: I've added the sort function in for the scorelines now but I'm having a little trouble with the centre-alignment of the attendance column. I can't seem to figure if I'm adding it wrong or if the mobile view is causing it to look different. Would you be able to add it to the first listing so I can do the rest in the correct manner? Kosack (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done one using the {{center}} template. I think you could probably get away with just doing that for entries less than 10,000! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the assist. I've added that in for the lower entries, let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass edit

Formatting
  • The only thing I notice is "The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation" vs "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation"
Reliability
  • No doubts here
Verifiability
  • Spotchecks not done, though I've spot checked this nominator before
  • Pass for source review, with the expectation that the minor comment above will be addressed. Aza24 (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aza24, I've amended the formatting of the RSSSF refs. Kosack (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NapHit edit

Only issue I could find is that Italy comes before Iran in the head-to-head table. Other than that, this is an exemplary list and deserves featured status. Nice work. NapHit (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 21:55, 8 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Wales_national_football_team_results_(1960–1979)/archive1&oldid=1016774174"