A fact from List of goalkeepers who have scored in the Premier League appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 April 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This list passes WP:NLIST, as One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, which is clearly the case here. These PL goals are considered separately in RSes from the general list in the see also section, which includes countries where goalkeepers take penalties/direct free kicks, and thus score a lot. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I think all the prose after the first paragraph should be integrated into the table. All the information is specific to a single instance rather than general to all six. Dividing and/or duplicating such information between prose and table is inefficient and has no advantage that I can see. If we want to add some summary info, add context to the "only six goalkeepers" stat by telling us how many matches have been played in total, how many goals have been scored, and how many goalkeepers have played. Also note that we are excluding cases where an outfield player turns emergency goalkeeper after having scored in a match. Also, has any keeper missed a penalty, or hit the woodwork from a free kick? Worth explaining that Newport County's match was not in Premier League, to avoid confusing a football-ignorant reader. jnestorius(talk)20:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Not everything in a list article is meant to be in the table, the prose summarising the goals is perfectly valid as prose. This style is recommended by WP:SALLEAD, and I don't know how you'd integrate it into the table in a sensible way. If you have sources for how many players, goalkeepers, matches there have been, that would be good to add, though I couldn't find sources for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
SALLEAD lists the following desiderata for a lead section:
summarizes its content
provides any necessary background information
gives encyclopedic context
links to other relevant articles
and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected
Which of those those apply to this extract from the current lead?
Schmeichel scored a volley ... from 6 yards (5.5 m) out after coming up the field for a 90th minute corner. Schmeichel had previously scored in a UEFA Cup match for Manchester United against Rotor Volgograd, and had previously scored eight goals for Danish clubs Hvidovre and Brøndby.
I don't personally see how that's an improvement, sorry. There are multiple FLs which have a lead explaining the topic (with a similar amount of characters) and then just a list, and I don't see why this would need to be different. Maybe it could be added into a separate heading, so it's not in the lead, but then the lead would be too short, as per MOS:LEADLENGTH. But in the middle of the table seems ugly and unnecessary to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
MOS:LEADLENGTH "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." This list has only 6 items, so it's natural that it is shorter than one that has 20 or 50 items. I've added some more to my lede, have a look now.
"In the middle of the table seems ugly" — is that a formatting issue? Formatting can be changed, an in any case content trumps aesthetics. Content that is logically related belongs together.
Personally I think the runt of a table in the present version looks ugly. It would be better to delete the table altogether and integrate the few details from it not already there into the two paragraphs.
Still waiting for an answer to my earlier question about SALLEAD.