Wikipedia:Peer review/List of football clubs in England by major honours won/archive1

List of football clubs in England by major honours won

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I did a couple of edits on this today, and kept on going. I reckon it could be close to being FLC now, and wanted to find out what else is needed to push for featured list status. The only glaring omissin I can see is a few more refs to those clubs without an honours page on their official websites.

Thanks, Peanut4 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The columns do not sort properly. When sorting by Titles, Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal appear between Portsmouth and West Bromwich Albion, and when sorting by FA Cups, Manchester United and Arsenal appear between Old Etonians and Leeds United. However, for some unexplained reason, the Total column sorts correctly. – PeeJay 20:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. And I can't work out why. I didn't enter the original table, but tried to re-enter the data but to no avail. Any clues would be most welcome. Peanut4 (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it. Simply changed the -s for 0s. It was previously sorting it as text, not numerals. Peanut4 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice one. I was going to suggest using the {{nts}} template, but this way is much simpler. – Pee Jay 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

Here's a few points:

In the second sentence I wouldn't say "clubs who have", I dunno if it is technically grammatically correct but it sounds wrong (to me at any rate) given that clubs are not people.
The FA Cup was first competed for in the 1871-72 season, not 1872 specifically
Maybe clarify that the Cup Winners Cup is no longer competed for?

All looks good other than that....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- All good points. And I've changed them all. Thanks for your input. Peanut4 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Some things to consider:

"the Premier League or The Football League up to 1992" - reads a little awkwardly, I know what you're saying but it's a little unclear...
- I've reworded it. Hopefully it reads better now? Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead reads a bit choppy, lots of short sentences in the second and third paragraphs particularly.
- I agree, but I will leave as is for a while because I'm not sure (maybe just tonight!) how best to re-write. Feel free to make any changes or suggestions. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last trophy column short really sort by year.
- Done. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the notes column need to be sortable?
- Indeed no. Done. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to see the wins columns all the same width (aesthetically more pleasing).
- Made them all 100px wide. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've got about 37 references, it's a shame you can't get the remaining dozen or so. Looks anomolous. I'd guess you're using the external links for those ones - consider just using those as named references.
- I've exhausted all the official club websites. I'm going to try find some others from other potential official sites / RS. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

Few odds and ends:

The 3rd para might read better if structured differently. Perhaps move the UEFA and CWC sentences to directly after the first sentence. Then the As of 2006-07, 32 English teams..., then Four sides winning the European Cup.
As the Fairs Cup was never a UEFA competition, they would tell you that the UEFA Cup and the Fairs Cup aren't the same thing at all, although it's only in the past very few years that they've rewritten history to claim as much. Could write it The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, which was succeeded by the UEFA Cup in 1972(?? or 1971), was founded two weeks after the European Cup.
Don't think you can disband the CWC. Discontinued? maybe add a clause saying it was merged into the UEFA Cup?
Column layout. The long heading CWC/FC/UC followed by the sort button stretches that column to well over 100px wide. Can get round that by introducing a line break before the UC, makes the heading a little untidy but it keeps the column widths the same. Though 100px is too wide on a 1024px width screen, bring it down to 80 for the number columns and it looks tidier and stops the clubnames (except Wolves, obviously) wrapping. Maybe percentages rather than pixels would be better for specifying the column widths, that way you don't have issues with smaller screen sizes.
In the references, I'd have specified the publisher as Template F.C. rather than Template official website, on the basis I see the F.C. as the publisher and the official website as the published work, but I wouldn't bother going back to change them.
Did you know that the recommended format for the date parameter in {{Cite news}} etc is ISO unwikilinked, the same as the accessdate? I didn't, until recently. I wouldn't bother going back to change them, either.

hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your help. I've amended the lead per the first three. Going to try on the second par now. I think I understand what you mean about the column widths, but can't really test to make sure it's right. How does it look now?

The CWC/FC/UC column was still being stretched to a different width from the others due to the absolute width of the heading, so I've introduced a line break and now those columns appear all the same width. See what you think, please feel free to revert or fiddle.

I've completed the references using FCHD. Any other comments or suggestions? Peanut4 (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, though I'm not sure External links need an access date. Noticed it was UEFA used the word "disband", of the Cupwinners Cup, still wouldn't have thought a cup competition was the sort of thing you could disband. If you'd like some prose to pull apart, I recommend List of Birmingham City F.C. managers which is available for peer review here, not that I'm canvassing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]